---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
Pages
▼
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Artificial intelligence – can we keep it in the box?
Artificial intelligence – can we keep it in the box?
We know how to deal with suspicious packages – as carefully as
possible! These days, we let robots take the risk. But what if the
robots are the risk? Some commentators argue we should be treating AI
(artificial intelligence) as a suspicious package, because it might
eventually blow up in our faces…
“We should stop treating intelligent machines as the stuff of science fiction.”
Cea.
We know how to deal with suspicious packages – as carefully as possible! These days, we let robots take the risk. But what if the robots are
the risk? Some commentators argue we should be treating AI (artificial
intelligence) as a suspicious package, because it might eventually blow
up in our faces. Should we be worried?
Exploding intelligence?
Asked whether there will ever be computers as smart as people, the US mathematician and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge replied: “Yes, but only briefly”.
He meant that once computers get to this level, there’s nothing to
prevent them getting a lot further very rapidly. Vinge christened this
sudden explosion of intelligence the “technological singularity”, and thought that it was unlikely to be good news, from a human point of view.
Was Vinge right, and if so what should we do about it? Unlike typical
suspicious parcels, after all, what the future of AI holds is up to us,
at least to some extent. Are there things we can do now to make sure
it’s not a bomb (or a good bomb rather than a bad bomb, perhaps)?
AI as a low achiever
Optimists sometimes take comfort from the fact the field of AI has
very chequered past. Periods of exuberance and hype have been mixed with
so-called “AI winters” – times of reduced funding and interest, after promised capabilities fail to materialise.
Some people point to this as evidence machines are never likely to
reach human levels of intelligence, let alone to exceed them. Others
point out that the same could have been said about heavier-than-air
flight.
ra1000
Click to enlarge
The history of that technology, too, is littered with naysayers (some
of whom refused to believe reports of the Wright brothers' success,
apparently). For human-level intelligence, as for heavier-than-air
flight, naysayers need to confront the fact nature has managed the
trick: think brains and birds, respectively.
A good naysaying argument needs a reason for thinking that human technology can never reach the bar in terms of AI.
Pessimism is much easier. For one thing, we know nature managed to
put human-level intelligence in skull-sized boxes, and that some of
those skull-sized boxes are making progress in figuring out how nature
does it. This makes it hard to maintain that the bar is permanently out
of reach of artificial intelligence – on the contrary, we seem to be
improving our understanding of what it would take to get there.
Moore’s Law and narrow AI
On the technological side of the fence, we seem to be making progress
towards the bar, both in hardware and in software terms. In the
hardware arena, Moore’s law,
which predicts that the amount of computing power we can fit on a chip
doubles every two years, shows little sign of slowing down.
In the software arena, people debate the possibility of “strong AI” (artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence) but the caravan of “narrow AI”
(AI that’s limited to particular tasks) moves steadily forward. One by
one, computers take over domains that were previously considered
off-limits to anything but human intellect and intuition.
We now have machines that have trumped human performance in such
domains as chess, trivia games, flying, driving, financial trading,
face, speech and handwriting recognition – the list goes on.
Along with the continuing progress in hardware, these developments in
narrow AI make it harder to defend the view that computers will never
reach the level of the human brain. A steeply rising curve and a
horizontal line seem destined to intersect!
What’s so bad about intelligent helpers?
Would it be a bad thing if computers were as smart as humans? The
list of current successes in narrow AI might suggest pessimism is
unwarranted. Aren’t these applications mostly useful, after all? A
little damage to Grandmasters' egos, perhaps, and a few glitches on
financial markets, but it’s hard to see any sign of impending
catastrophe on the list above.
That’s true, say the pessimists, but as far as our future is
concerned, the narrow domains we yield to computers are not all created
equal. Some areas are likely to have a much bigger impact than others.
(Having robots drive our cars may completely rewire our economies in the
next decade or so, for example).
The greatest concerns stem from the possibility that computers might
take over domains that are critical to controlling the speed and
direction of technological progress itself.
Software writing software?
What happens if computers reach and exceed human capacities to write
computer programs? The first person to consider this possibility was the
Cambridge-trained mathematician I J Good (who worked with Alan Turing code-breaking at Bletchley Park during the second world war, and later on early computers at the University of Manchester).
In 1965 Good observed that having intelligent machines develop even more intelligent machines would result in an “intelligence explosion”,
which would leave the human levels of intelligence far behind. He
called the creation of such machine “our last invention” – which is
unlikely to be “Good” news, the pessimists add!
FlySi
Click to enlarge
In the above scenario, the moment computers become better programmers
than humans marks the point in history where the speed of technological
progress shifts from the speed of human thought and communication to
the speed of silicon. This is a version of Vernor Vinge’s “technological
singularity” – beyond this point, the curve is driven by new dynamics
and the future becomes radically unpredictable, as Vinge had in mind.
Not just like us, but smarter!
It would be comforting to think that any intelligence that surpassed
our own capabilities would be like us, in important respects – just a
lot cleverer. But here, too, the pessimists see bad news: they point out
that almost all the things we humans value (love, happiness, even
survival) are important to us because we have particular evolutionary
history – a history we share with higher animals, but not with computer
programs, such as artificial intelligences.
By default, then, we seem to have no reason to think that intelligent
machines would share our values. The good news is that we probably have
no reason to think they would be hostile, as such: hostility, too, is
an animal emotion.
JD Hancock
Click to enlarge
The bad news is that they might simply be indifferent to us – they
might care about us as much as we care about the bugs on the windscreen.
People sometimes complain that corporations are psychopaths, if they
are not sufficiently reined in by human control. The pessimistic
prospect here is that artificial intelligence might be similar, except
much much cleverer and much much faster.
Getting in the way
By now you see where this is going, according to this pessimistic
view. The concern is that by creating computers that are as intelligent
as humans (at least domains that matter to technological progress), we
risk yielding control over the planet to intelligences that are simply
indifferent to us, and to things that we consider valuable – things such
as life and a sustainable environment.
If that sounds far-fetched, the pessimists say, just ask gorillas how
it feels to compete for resources with the most intelligent species –
the reason they are going extinct is not (on the whole) because humans
are actively hostile towards them, but because we control the
environment in ways that are detrimental to their continuing survival.
How much time do we have?
It’s hard to say how urgent the problem is, even if pessimists are
right. We don’t yet know exactly what makes human thought different from
current generation of machine learning algorithms, for one thing, so we
don’t know the size of the gap between the fixed bar and the rising
curve.
But some trends point towards the middle of the present century. In Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap,
the Oxford philosophers Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom suggest our
ability to scan and emulate human brains might be sufficient to
replicate human performance in silicon around that time.
“The pessimists might be wrong!”
Of course – making predictions is difficult, as they say, especially
about the future! But in ordinary life we take uncertainties very
seriously, when a lot is at stake.
Sebastianlund
Click to enlarge
That’s why we use expensive robots to investigate suspicious packages,
after all (even when we know that only a very tiny proportion of them
will turn out to be bombs).
If the future of AI is “explosive” in the way described here, it
could be the last bomb the human species ever encounters. A suspicious
attitude would seem more than sensible, then, even if we had good reason
to think the risks are very small.
At the moment, even that degree of reassurance seems out of our reach
– we don’t know enough about the issues to estimate the risks with any
high degree of confidence. (Feeling optimistic is not the same as having
good reason to be optimistic, after all).
What to do?
A good first step, we think, would be to stop treating intelligent
machines as the stuff of science fiction, and start thinking of them as a
part of the reality that we or our descendants may actually confront,
sooner or later.
Once we put such a future on the agenda we can begin some serious
research about ways to ensure out-sourcing intelligence to machines
would be safe and beneficial, from our point of view.
Perhaps the best cause for optimism is that, unlike ordinary ticking
parcels, the future of AI is still being assembled, piece by piece, by
hundreds of developers and scientists throughout the world.
The future isn’t yet fixed, and there may well be things we can do
now to make it safer. But this is only a reason for optimism if we take
the trouble to make it one, by investigating the issues and thinking
hard about the safest strategies.
We owe it to our grandchildren – not to mention our ancestors, who
worked so hard for so long to get us this far! – to make that effort.
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk
The authors are the co-founders, together with the eminent British astrophysicist, Lord Martin Rees, of a new project to establish a Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge.
The Centre will support research to identify and mitigate
catastrophic risk from developments in human technology, including AI –
further details at CSER.ORG. -box-8541
No comments:
Post a Comment