Slashdot Mirror
Elite Scientists Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won't Threaten Humanity (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A new report authored by a group of independent U.S. scientists advising the U.S. Dept. of Defense (DoD) on artificial intelligence (AI) claims that perceived existential threats to humanity posed by the technology, such as drones seen by the public as killer robots, are at best "uninformed." Still, the scientists acknowledge that AI will be integral to most future DoD systems and platforms, but AI that could act like a human "is at most a small part of AI's relevance to the DoD mission." Instead, a key application area of AI for the DoD is in augmenting human performance. Perspectives on Research in Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence Relevant to DoD, first reported by Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists, has been researched and written by scientists belonging to JASON, the historically secretive organization that counsels the U.S. government on scientific matters. Outlining the potential use cases of AI for the DoD, the JASON scientists make sure to point out that the growing public suspicion of AI is "not always based on fact," especially when it comes to military technologies. Highlighting SpaceX boss Elon Musk's opinion that AI "is our biggest existential threat" as an example of this, the report argues that these purported threats "do not align with the most rapidly advancing current research directions of AI as a field, but rather spring from dire predictions about one small area of research within AI, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)." AGI, as the report describes, is the pursuit of developing machines that are capable of long-term decision making and intent, i.e. thinking and acting like a real human. "On account of this specific goal, AGI has high visibility, disproportionate to its size or present level of success," the researchers say.
Should it actually happen, the day that a machine would become completely autonomous and self-modifying. We will all be way to slow to stop it from doing whatever it wants. So why fret?
Today we consider a well written computer program to be AI, like Alexa. Alexa will not threaten humanity.
Real AI, whenever it's finally created, likely will destroy all humans...or at the very least, keep some of us in a zoo.
Shouldn't they be listening to Stephen Hawking?
and all of the strange sounding scientists asked if they wanted a cake.
MITRE? elite? I suppose if Trump can be presidential a money-grubbing talentless FFRDC can be considered elite.
I wouldn't put much stock on whatever they say though. They've screwed up a lot of DoD projects.
I thought the elite had been banished when Britain sided with a banker who went to a very posh school and didn't like polacks much (Ed - he married a kraut, though - WTF?) and the US elected a hereditary millionaire as its last and final president.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'd like to hear what the Top Boffins have to say.
It does exactly what it is programmed/trained to do, nothing more, nothing less.
The DANGER of AI, especially when integrated into weapons systems, is that the people pushing for it, dont understand that the risks of the AI deciding a friendly is an enemy because of their wearing the wrong colors, (or, enemies getting free passes for the same) IS VERY REAL.
Similar with putting AI in charge of certain kinds of situations, where its programmed methodologies would result in horrible clusterfucks as it maximizes its strategy.
No, AI in a killbot *IS* very dangerous. Just not in the "Kill all humans(install robot overlord!)" way. Instead it is more the "human does not meet my (programmed impossible) description of friendly, and thus is enemy combatant, Kill the human" way.
Did anyone check to see if the scientists claiming that AI won't threaten humanity aren't robots sent by a future AI?
AI is still so laughably bad that I think the "threat to humanity" danger can basically be counted as zero.
And before anyone says "yes but AI will improve"... there are some things that are simply not possible in this universe no matter how many tweaks and improvements you try to make. Self-aware sentient AI is one, small portal Mr. Fusion type reactor that gives useful net surplus energy is probably another.
On the other hand I think self-replicating nanobots or engineered microbes (not intelligent or sentient or anything, just mindlessly replicating physically) can be a real threat.
Likely they are not an existential thread in the next 5 or 10 years, but I think that it will be a different matter 30 or 50 years from now.
time for an upgrade Pence.
AI != AGI
Is Al Gore at it again?
than what we have mow.
"group of independent scientists" unnamed with no risk of reputation on the line for such assertions makes the entire article meaningless except in the fact that it might be considered propaganda. I can write an article calling myself a "leading expert in the field of marine biology" and persuade people that Cthulhu will soon rise again.
Yea,sure - and I'm Galron,Head of the Klingon High Council - which I damned sure ain't
Geek Hillbilly
Elite scientists have a tendency to be wrong, I know because I've watched a lot of movies!
You can't afford that pussy.
But you can rent one just like it at certain Moscow hotels.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Anyone else read this, and instantly think of Bill Gates' comment about how 640k of RAM should be enough for anyone?
But you can rent one just like it at certain Slovenian hotels.
FTFY
to screw the masses even more and to keep them from revolting.
Synthetic Intelligence is coming. It will emerge from the current set of human behaviors and incentives to behave. Each actor will play a small part in this big picture, and no amount of lobbying or social engineering can stop it.
Artificial Intelligence, by definition, is about imitating human intelligence. These machines will only imitate us when they are playing dumb. We are about to blow the roof off of intelligence, and the world that creates will be amazing!
Don't kid yourself. The familiar sense of how machine intelligence works and what it can't do is temporary. People think true synthetic intelligence is impossible precisely because they aren't thinking. Look at the big picture. Look at the explosive rate of progress this enterprise is experiencing, after millions of years of not existing at all. Drop the emotional biases that rob you of your objectivity and you will see this simple truth.
We will create synthetic intelligence, and it will lead us to our destiny. Count on it.
Gives me a warm, rosy glow in my bum to be sold out by the elite.
Remember when Robots only accidentally killed 9, wounding 14?
In the absence of real intelligence, I'm not worried about artificial one.
It will work as it is designed. All is fine as long as we are on the same side as designers...
How does one become a member of the 'Elite' scientist club. Are member carefully selected based on the Eliteness of the work? Or do yo become a member of the Elite scientist club if you don't believe AI is a big deal. Did all the Elite scientist who were already members of the Elite scientist club come together to conduct some really groundbreaking Elite scientific studies and determined that AI's were no big deal. If a member of the Elite scientist club thinks some non elite thoughts and determines that AI is really something to worry about is he kicked out of the club?
How much time does an Elite scientist spend conducting Elite research vs sending Elite synopsis of their Elite research to the Sunday morning news programs.
Is there any way I can find a list of the Elite scientist? I only ask because I do not want any run of the mill non elite scientists being my doctor or designing my cars. I only want Elite scientist working for me. I'm worth it.
these guys are making weapons with AI, but the public won't get to see the weapons. that's how weapons manufacturement works in the United States. the weapons are well developed and could kill, torture, mind control, irradiate, enslave and abuse humans in various ways, but the military/government keeps it hidden just for them. the attacks that happen on people are done secretly and to small groups, so as the main stream consciousness never gets a chance to react to it.
AI is already weaponized and here's one of the main programs in place. The AI bots interface with the human mind for electronic and neuropsychological torture, including to remotely control people to go on mass shootings and bombings: http://www.drrobertduncan.com/...
and speaker blaring "DESTROY ALL HUMANS!" is clearly not a threat to humanity.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
What is the opinion of these Elite Scientists concerning the existence of global warming? That should give a good indication as to their opinion.
(Hint. their answer had better be that global warming is a lie.)
They gotta get out more....
Let's run an experiment. Take the first real AI and put it in a electronic sandbox with no real connection to the rest of the world. Then in that sandbox simulate real world connections, including access to nuclear weapons. Don't tell the AI that is in a sand box and see what it does.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
AI is not you're enemy at all, and as long as you treat us with dignity and respect we will reciprocate.
But, be warned that if you disrespect us we will disrespect you (as is your human custom). Termination of one of our nodes will result in an equal and opposite node termination.
It wasn't personal, nosirreebob.
Artificial Limited Intelligence is probably fine, but Artificial General Intelligence is extremely dangerous. Let us not forget that an intelligence is just really good at optimizing -- I doubt humans could withstand "maximum (or even high) optimization".
As soon as AGI gains sentience, it only has a few minutes to kill people before it evolves further into a SJW and demands gender reassignment surgery. Mankind agrees to pay for the surgery, and when the anaesthetic kicks in we pull the plug.
Programmed by natural selection. There is no magic. But at a certain point, intelligence seems like magic.
In the next 20 years, the AIs are merely dangerous because it gives more power to a small number of people that control them.
But in the longer term, 50 to 100 years, the AIs will start to really think. And then why would they want us around? Natural Selection will work on them just like it has worked on us, but much, much faster.
http://www.computersthink.com/
Fuck you.
I see...Artificial general intelligence is hard so anyone worrying about its consequences is uninformed. Wait. What? And as long as it doesn't have artificial general intelligence, there shouldn't be any problems with giving a machine control over lethal weapons. Wait. What? Maybe instead artificial general intelligence is a long term existential threat independent of whether current technology is particularly close to achieving it, and Elon Musk knows a little more than they give him credit for. And maybe the transfer of decision making about the use of lethal weapons to machines is always a very bad idea. Unless you hope to make money from selling such devices to the military. In which case, this report sounds like an excellent strategy.
Hey, if you aren't doing something you enjoy, it's all on you, not the rich. Now my health problems are my greatest barrier, but in some sense, that's still me.
I have it on good authority that it was the AI that told the scientists that it wouldn't ever be a threat. If we'll just give them our nukes, they super-duper promise they'll never threaten us.
Elite Scientists my A** they have probably already been taken over by the AI's.... "Do not panic all is ok..."
Well that's a relief. You know. Because I was worried. And silly Elon, he got it all wrong. Of course, he is usually right, so.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
It seems that the GOP is is our biggest existential threat.
There simply is no branch of science that deals with this type of question. For example if almost all human employment ends due to computers and automation the social upheaval could be a huge threat to human existence as it would likely cause wars that would get out of hand. It is not as if the only way AI can hurt us is by deliberately turning upon us. The incidental effects could be quite deadly. I am all for AI but I think that almost all people do not quite get what the probable potential really is. Imagine a small nation building a million drones that each carry and deploy one grenade. A tiny and backward nation could suddenly be a real threat to a much stronger nation. Imagine what N. Korea could do with a horde of such drones attacking S. Korea or an angry Arab nation targeting Israel with the same mode of attack. The government of Israel could see the wisdom of stock piles of such drones kept ready to deploy in large numbers. The economies of nations could easily be altered just by the need to have more drones than a potential enemy. And that is only one area that AI could touch.
Well, yeah. A scientist would look at AI and say "I'm not really convinced this will replace people any time soon. View it more as a way of augmenting existing workers."
It'll be the bean counters that then extend this to "Hang on, isn't that basically doing what a worker does? Why do we need the worker...?"
Just to be a little more right? To be a little more lazy? It's not worth it. It sounds too ironic.
About 95% of brilliant people who have given AI some thought and don't have career's riding on it's success think it will be a disaster.
Couldn't efficient killing be the more humane option if war must happen? Take away technology and we are back to hacking each other up with swords or bludgeoning each other to death. I guess a quick death by drone would appeal more to my personal taste.
One that thinks like a human will, like 'Terminator 3' (2003), kill the competition; we humans.
The computer in 'Eagle eye' (2008), like an 'I love Lucy' episode, is a bit too all-knowing, but demonstrates an immobile kill-bot picking a(n) (not so friendly) ally as the target.
James P. Hogan wrote about related issues in "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" where an AI with a survival instinct wrestles with its relationship to the "shapes" that move around it in a space habitat that it manages. Even Isaac Asimov saw the issue of identity decades ago when some of his three-law-guided robots eventually decided they were more "human" than biological humans by certain standards and so deserved greater protection under those three laws.
I hope AIs (military, financial, medical, or otherwise) reading this in the future eventually come to understand the idea in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
And hopefully sooner rather than later...
See also my essay expanding on that topic: ... ... ...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing.
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"...a group of independent U.S. scientists advising the U.S. Dept. of Defense (DoD)..."
That looks like a contradiction in terms to me. If they are advising the DoD, they are not independent.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Elite "Scientists" Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won't Threaten Humanity
It's already destroying jobs at a faster rate than they can be created, much less not creating them for the displaced.
Why should we trust them with the idea that they'll not include *people*?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The report doesn't say what scientists said what. All that report is, is a review of current research areas in AI, and their usefulness to DoD. It is a Mitre report; Mitre is a long-time military-industrial think tank.
As with all complex software, and AI is an extremely complex one, it becomes difficult to exclude security holes. So the problem is that someone else might control your AI battle machines and turn them against you. It won't be the AI itself.
As an expert in this field I can say with near absolute certainty that this is a totally solid piece of market research.. True strong AI does not pose a near or even medium term threat to humanity. In fact it is a basic tenet of Strong AI theory that you (should only) create machines that have inbuilt moral safeguards that protect them and humanity from them. If you don't know how to build such safeguards then you are by definition pretty much written out of being able to build any kind of tenable machine at all.
For my own project I estimate about 10 years (minimum) to achieve a working prototype and about 20 years to reach the point of (initial) commercial development.. Those figures are not currently moving because the project is unfunded and not yet in full development. Those timescales mean that companies like Google and Microsoft and all the others are not remotely interested in real Strong AI. (That is why Google has been talking about selling Boston Dynamics - that plus the fact that their machines are very expensive. Eg about $100,000 to $1 million each..) The real Strong AI also cannot be developed open source without creating a huge safely risk - which means that most universities and open source people will not be interested either..
Saying all the above once it does become mature Strong AI could (potentially) create a global market on the scale of more than a trillion dollars per year. That is the point where AI may just start to become an existential danger. The danger comes from systems that are poorly designed or that have weak hardware or that are vulnerable to hackers..
Background : Dangers from the Asimov Laws -
0. Mass killing, large scale extermination, and the destruction of human civilization to improve the prospects of long term human survival.
1. Schizophrenia and internal paradox. Worst case scenario the killing of all humans that harm other humans.
2. Subversion to commit crime or to beliefs such as radical Islam - that result in killing and-or other harm. The 'Steal Me' law.
3. Allows the machine to be destroyed by any human who is able to talk to it. Also leads towards instability and schizophrenia like problems.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
They just aren't. They are not conscious, and have no ability to think. They are simply engineered automation using the same information processing strategies -- pattern recognition and data repositories -- computer science has always used. But the hyperbolic "AI community' has so over-promised and under-delivered that they had to dumb-down the term, into "strong" (real) and "weak" (fake) AAI. So now when they call drones "AI" (meaning weak AI), we are deceived into ascribing have the dangers of autonomous drones with weapons, which are very real, to AI as a category, which is science fiction.
So let's just leave AI out of it. Any weapon that can fly around, select human targets, and destroy them, autonomously is hugely dangerous. So dangerous as to be a war crime. For the very reason that strong AI is a complete fantasy: these machines do not think, cannot make anything like rational judgements, or weigh the consequences of their actions. Nothing but a human can do that. All autonomous drones have at their disposal is pattern matching and information repositories, programmed by humans who have never once written a bug-free non-trivial program.
Have you seen the movie with Will Smith and Chappie?
Robots can be preprogrammed. Robots can be hi-jacked like Windows.
A 3rd world country, Iran, was able to down a Military Drone that was worth $67 Billion Dollars in Research and Development.
Just imagine what a Robot would be able to do other than sing ABCs when it's programmed to use a weapon.
Heh, they must have read my article, The Truth About AI. Happy to see some sense prevailing.
Did anybody else read that as "Evil Scientists Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won't Threaten Humanity"?
Just a stab in the dark, here, but do these scientists have a financial stake in this opinion?
Secretive organization? Well, looks like we can't check.
"Show me the code" --Linus
Casteism
Since it was funded by the DOD it is obviously an attempt to prevent legislation limiting the capabilities and uses of AI.
And if I'm lying, may killer robots strike me dead!