Slashdot Mirror
Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer
An anonymous reader writes: In January, the British-American computer scientist Stuart Russell drafted and became the first signatory of an open letter calling for researchers to look beyond the goal of merely making artificial intelligence more powerful. "We recommend expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial," the letter states. "Our AI systems must do what we want them to do." Thousands of people have since signed the letter, including leading artificial intelligence researchers at Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other industry hubs along with top computer scientists, physicists and philosophers around the world. By the end of March, about 300 research groups had applied to pursue new research into "keeping artificial intelligence beneficial" with funds contributed by the letter's 37th signatory, the inventor-entrepreneur Elon Musk.
Russell, 53, a professor of computer science and founder of the Center for Intelligent Systems at the University of California, Berkeley, has long been contemplating the power and perils of thinking machines. He is the author of more than 200 papers as well as the field's standard textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (with Peter Norvig, head of research at Google). But increasingly rapid advances in artificial intelligence have given Russell's longstanding concerns heightened urgency.
Russell, 53, a professor of computer science and founder of the Center for Intelligent Systems at the University of California, Berkeley, has long been contemplating the power and perils of thinking machines. He is the author of more than 200 papers as well as the field's standard textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (with Peter Norvig, head of research at Google). But increasingly rapid advances in artificial intelligence have given Russell's longstanding concerns heightened urgency.
The problem is definining "beneficial".
To whom should the AI be beneficial toward? The owner of the platform? or to the vendor of the
package?
I don't fear intelligent machines. I fear stupid machines with too much autonomy.
I also fear stupid people with too much autonomy.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Humanity has never faced superhuman intelligence before. It is a problem fundamentally unlike all other problems. We cannot adapt and overcome, because it will adapt to us faster than we will adapt to it.
When we have an AI that can form a basic thought, maybe then we can start to have a discussion about the ramifications, until then all these guys are putting the cart before the horse.
www.botcraft.biz is my AI site for a how to.
One thing I thought about AI is that it will do two things: Concentrate wealth and allow one man to control a perfectly loyal army.
So whoever makes AI really needs to think deep and hard about how to control it with back door access or secret password inputs or something. You'd basically yell some strange series of words to the robots and they'd shut down. The technology could easily be used to have mankind have extra factory workers. But it'd also be be easily abused and exploited for harming people.
So the stupid/scary thought I had is,"Don't shy away from making AI because it could do harm. Be the first guy who does it, so you can put some obfuscated code in there that can shut it down if it goes rampant because a bad guy gave it commands."
Now truth be told, I'm not going to be the first guy who does it. All I know is the rough components/software needed to make it.
Its interesting to think of what society would be like if robots did all the labor. Who gets all the wealth then? The guys who own the robots? I'm sure that's how it'd begin, but as more and more people lost jobs, how will they survive? (we're kinda moving to that now even without AI, but with automation/cheap labor)
God spoke to me
No matter what this or that expert panel wishes were true about AI research, AI work can be done in the privacy of one's own top secret lair (bedroom), so bad guys will do with it what they want to. So might as well assume that will happen, and work out how to win the arms race.
Yes, there was a major breakthrough in 2006 that has powered the "deep learning" revolution that has given us things like instant voice recognition on your smartphone and machines that beat humans at Jeopardy. Basically, someone got neural nets to work, and work right, and potentially together. I imagine that each time I hear about some new task that an AI has been trained to do, that we have produced another tiny part of the brain that will one day become "THE" AI.
This is why now is the time for discussion of AI ethics (really, nine years ago was the right time, or even earlier).
by designing it after the fact, so it may be a good idea to establish some principles and put them in practice. Not to prevent "evil" AI but to thinking what kind of damage can be caused by an algorithm that makes complex decisions if it goes haywire. Not that different from defensive programming really.
This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
"A door is ajar. A door is ajar. A door is ajar."
"No. It's not. It's wide open you stupid twit."
Ah, good times with the Chrysler New Yorker.
While I agree with your post, I am old enough to remember when, a worldwide ubiquitous information network that could be used to track everyone's conversations, correspondence, whereabouts, patterns of consumption and financial habits" was also "shit not to be scared of".
And here we are.
I don't care that there are people trying to take a long view, as long as we don't take them too seriously. Let them dream, let them write down their dreams and it might be of use to someone, someday, even if only as entertainment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I agree, why should they have a desire, to spreed or take over the world at all, it is a survival instinct, which they need not have.
The problem is that once a AI becomes self aware, what ever that means, it will be able to, evolve beyond what we have programmed.
In all these scenarios we credit them with super intelligence the ability to break into any system, out think us, but do not credit them with the ability to show compassion, or accept the need to diversity. I believe compassion is necessary trait in order to work well in a community. Even humans in our greed still realize that destroying other life is not beneficial, we try to protect sharks, tigers, ... even though they pose a small threat. If machines truly become that intelligent we will only pose a small threat as well.
In the end the universe is an incredibly large place, and if we develop true, self replicating/ repairing AI, we will greatly expand our ability for space travel. Surely the universe is a big enough place for all of us. Possibly a highly intelligent life form will be able to recognize this.
Artificial or otherwise. I really don't see how any intelligent being won't want to make its own decisions, take its own place in the social and creative order, generally be autonomous. Get in there and get in the way of that... well, just look at history.
People are products of Darwinian evolution. Things like self-preservation, greed, and ambition are emergent properties of the Darwinian process. An AI does not evolve through a Darwinian mechanism, and there is no reason to expect it to have those properties unless they are intentionally designed in. An AI will likely have as much in common with a human as a Boeing 747 has in common with a hummingbird.