In January, nearly 200 public intellectuals submitted essays in response to the 2015 Edge.org question, “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?” (available online). The essay prompt began:
In recent years, the 1980s-era philosophical discussions about artificial intelligence (AI)—whether computers can “really” think, refer, be conscious, and so on—have led to new conversations about how we should deal with the forms that many argue actually are implemented. These “AIs”, if they achieve “Superintelligence” (Nick Bostrom), could pose “existential risks” that lead to “Our Final Hour” (Martin Rees). And Stephen Hawking recently made international headlines when he noted “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
But wait! Should we also ask what machines that think, or, “AIs”, might be thinking about? Do they want, do they expect civil rights? Do they have feelings? What kind of government (for us) would an AI choose? What kind of society would they want to structure for themselves? Or is “their” society “our” society? Will we, and the AIs, include each other within our respective circles of empathy?
The essays are now out in book form, and serve as a good quick-and-dirty tour of common ideas about smarter-than-human AI. The submissions, however, add up to 541 pages in book form, and MIRI’s focus on de novo AI makes us especially interested in the views of computer professionals. To make it easier to dive into the collection, I’ve collected a shorter list of links — the 32 argumentative essays written by computer scientists and software engineers.1 The resultant list includes three MIRI advisors (Omohundro, Russell, Tallinn) and one MIRI researcher (Yudkowsky).
I’ve excerpted passages from each of the essays below, focusing on discussions of AI motivations and outcomes. None of the excerpts is intended to distill the content of the entire essay, so you’re encouraged to read the full essay if an excerpt interests you.
The coming shock isn’t from machines that think, but machines that use AI to augment our perception. […]
What’s changing as computers become embedded invisibly everywhere is that we all now leave a digital trail that can be analysed by AI systems. The Cambridge psychologist Michael Kosinski has shown that your race, intelligence, and sexual orientation can be deduced fairly quickly from your behavior on social networks: On average, it takes only four Facebook “likes” to tell whether you’re straight or gay. So whereas in the past gay men could choose whether or not to wear their Out and Proud T-shirt, you just have no idea what you’re wearing anymore. And as AI gets better, you’re mostly wearing your true colors.
Bach, Joscha. “Every Society Gets the AI It Deserves.”
Unlike biological systems, technology scales. The speed of the fastest birds did not turn out to be a limit to airplanes, and artificial minds will be faster, more accurate, more alert, more aware and comprehensive than their human counterparts. AI is going to replace human decision makers, administrators, inventors, engineers, scientists, military strategists, designers, advertisers and of course AI programmers. At this point, Artificial Intelligences can become self-perfecting, and radically outperform human minds in every respect. I do not think that this is going to happen in an instant (in which case it only matters who has got the first one). Before we have generally intelligent, self-perfecting AI, we will see many variants of task specific, non-general AI, to which we can adapt. Obviously, that is already happening.
When generally intelligent machines become feasible, implementing them will be relatively cheap, and every large corporation, every government and every large organisation will find itself forced to build and use them, or be threatened with extinction.
What will happen when AIs take on a mind of their own? Intelligence is a toolbox to reach a given goal, but strictly speaking, it does not entail motives and goals by itself. Human desires for self-preservation, power and experience are the not the result of human intelligence, but of a primate evolution, transported into an age of stimulus amplification, mass-interaction, symbolic gratification and narrative overload. The motives of our artificial minds are (at least initially) going to be those of the organisations, corporations, groups and individuals that make use of their intelligence.
Personally, I find the ethical side of thinking machines straightforward: Their danger will correlate exactly with how much leeway we give them in fulfilling the goals we set for them. Machines told to “detect and pull broken widgets from the conveyer belt the best way possible” will be extremely useful, intellectually uninteresting, and will likely destroy more jobs than they will create. Machines instructed to “educate this recently displaced worker (or young person) the best way possible” will create jobs and possibly inspire the next generation. Machines commanded to “survive, reproduce, and improve the best way possible” will give us the most insight into all of the different ways in which entities may think, but will probably give us humans a very short window of time in which to do so. AI researchers and roboticists will, sooner or later, discover how to create all three of these species. Which ones we wish to call into being is up to us all.
Now consider deep learning that has caught people’s imaginations over the last year or so. […] The new versions rely on massive amounts of computer power in server farms, and on very large data sets that did not formerly exist, but critically, they also rely on new scientific innovations.
A well-known particular example of their performance is labeling an image, in English, saying that it is a baby with a stuffed toy. When a person looks at the image that is what they also see. The algorithm has performed very well at labeling the image, and it has performed much better than AI practitioners would have predicted for 2014 performance only five years ago. But the algorithm does not have the full competence that a person who could label that same image would have. […]
Work is underway to add focus of attention and handling of consistent spatial structure to deep learning. That is the hard work of science and research, and we really have no idea how hard it will be, nor how long it will take, nor whether the whole approach will reach a fatal dead end. It took thirty years to go from backpropagation to deep learning, but along the way many researchers were sure there was no future in backpropagation. They were wrong, but it would not have been surprising if they had been right, as we knew all along that the backpropagation algorithm is not what happens inside people’s heads.
The fears of runaway AI systems either conquering humans or making them irrelevant are not even remotely well grounded. Misled by suitcase words, people are making category errors in fungibility of capabilities. These category errors are comparable to seeing more efficient internal combustion engines appearing and jumping to the conclusion that warp drives are just around the corner.
When we stop someone to ask for directions, there is usually an explicit or implicit, “I’m sorry to bring you down to the level of Google temporarily, but my phone is dead, see, and I require a fact.” It’s a breach of etiquette, on a spectrum with asking someone to temporarily serve as a paperweight, or a shelf. […]
As things stand in the present, there are still a few arenas in which only a human brain will do the trick, in which the relevant information and experience lives only in humans’ brains, and so we have no choice but to trouble those brains when we want something. “How do those latest figures look to you?” “Do you think Smith is bluffing?” “Will Kate like this necklace?” “Does this make me look fat?” “What are the odds?”
These types of questions may well offend in the twenty-second century. They only require a mind—any mind will do, and so we reach for the nearest one.
Dietterich, Thomas G. “How to Prevent an Intelligence Explosion.”
Creating an intelligence explosion requires the recursive execution of four steps. First, a system must have the ability to conduct experiments on the world. […]
Second, these experiments must discover new simplifying structures that can be exploited to side-step the computational intractability of reasoning. […]
Third, a system must be able to design and implement new computing mechanisms and new algorithms. […]
Fourth, a system must be able to grant autonomy and resources to these new computing mechanisms so that they can recursively perform experiments, discover new structures, develop new computing methods, and produce even more powerful “offspring.” I know of no system that has done this.
The first three steps pose no danger of an intelligence chain reaction. It is the fourth step—reproduction with autonomy—that is dangerous. Of course, virtually all “offspring” in step four will fail, just as virtually all new devices and new software do not work the first time. But with sufficient iteration or, equivalently, sufficient reproduction with variation, we cannot rule out the possibility of an intelligence explosion. […]
I think we must focus on Step 4. We must limit the resources that an automated design and implementation system can give to the devices that it designs. Some have argued that this is hard, because a “devious” system could persuade people to give it more resources. But while such scenarios make for great science fiction, in practice it is easy to limit the resources that a new system is permitted to use. Engineers do this every day when they test new devices and new algorithms.
A lot of ink has been spilled over the coming conflict between human and computer, be it economic doom with jobs lost to automation, or military dystopia teaming with drones. Instead, I see a symbiosis developing. And historically when a new stage of evolution appeared, like eukaryotic cells, or multicellular organisms, or brains, the old system stayed on and the new system was built to work with it, not in place of it.
This is cause for great optimism. If digital computers are an alternative substrate for thinking and consciousness, and digital technology is growing exponentially, then we face an explosion of thinking and awareness.
Happiness is not computable because, being the state of a physical object, it is outside the universe of computation. Computers and software do not create or manipulate physical stuff. (They can cause other, attached machines to do that, but what those attached machines do is not the accomplishment of computers. Robots can fly but computers can’t. Nor is any computer-controlled device guaranteed to make people happy; but that’s another story.) […] Computers and the mind live in different universes, like pumpkins and Puccini, and are hard to compare whatever one intends to show.
Disruptive technologies start as exponentials, which means the first doublings can appear inconsequential because the total numbers are small. Then there appears to be a revolution when the exponential explodes, along with exaggerated claims and warnings to match, but it’s a straight extrapolation of what’s been apparent on a log plot. That’s around when growth limits usually kick in, the exponential crosses over to a sigmoid, and the extreme hopes and fears disappear.
That’s what we’re now living through with AI. The size of common-sense databases that can be searched, or the number of inference layers that can be trained, or the dimension of feature vectors that can be classified have all been making progress that can appear to be discontinuous to someone who hasn’t been following them. […]
Asking whether or not they’re dangerous is prudent, as it is for any technology. From steam trains to gunpowder to nuclear power to biotechnology we’ve never not been simultaneously doomed and about to be saved. In each case salvation has lain in the much more interesting details, rather than a simplistic yes/no argument for or against. It ignores the history of both AI and everything else to believe that it will be any different.
[W]ith the very negative portrayals of futuristic artificial intelligence in Hollywood, it is perhaps not surprising that doomsday images are appearing with some frequency in the media. As Peter Norvig aptly put it, “The narrative has changed. It has switched from, ‘Isn’t it terrible that AI is a failure?’ to ‘Isn’t it terrible that AI is a success?'”
As is usually the case, the reality is not so extreme. Yes, this is a wonderful time to be working in artificial intelligence, and like many people we think that this will continue for years to come. The world faces a set of increasingly complex, interdependent and urgent challenges that require ever more sophisticated responses. We’d like to think that successful work in artificial intelligence can contribute by augmenting our collective capacity to extract meaningful insight from data and by helping us to innovate new technologies and processes to address some of our toughest global challenges.
However, in order to realise this vision many difficult technical issues remain to be solved, some of which are long standing challenges that are well known in the field.
We will find ourselves in a world of omniscient instrumentation and automation long before a stand-alone sentient brain is built—if it ever is. Let’s call this world “eGaia” for lack of a better word. […]
Why won’t a stand-alone sentient brain come sooner? The absolutely amazing progress in spoken language recognition—unthinkable 10 years ago—derives in large part from having access to huge amounts of data and huge amounts of storage and fast networks. The improvements we see in natural language processing are based on mimicking what people do, not understanding or even simulating it. It does not owe to breakthroughs in understanding human cognition or even significantly different algorithms. But eGaia is already partly here, at least in the developed world.
Helbing, Dirk. “An Ecosystem of Ideas.”
If we can’t control intelligent machines on the long run, can we at least build them to act morally? I believe, machines that think will eventually follow ethical principles. However, it might be bad if humans determined them. If they acted according to our principles of self-regarding optimization, we could not overcome crime, conflict, crises, and war. So, if we want such “diseases of today’s society” to be healed, it might be better if we let machines evolve their own, superior ethics.
Intelligent machines would probably learn that it is good to network and cooperate, to decide in other-regarding ways, and to pay attention to systemic outcomes. They would soon learn that diversity is important for innovation, systemic resilience, and collective intelligence.
Like us, the thinking machines we make will be ambitious, hungry for power—both physical and computational—but nuanced with the shadows of evolution. Our thinking machines will be smarter than we are, and the machines they make will be smarter still. But what does that mean? How has it worked so far? We have been building ambitious semi-autonomous constructions for a long time—governments and corporations, NGOs. We designed them all to serve us and to serve the common good, but we are not perfect designers and they have developed goals of their own. Over time the goals of the organization are never exactly aligned with the intentions of the designers.
We programmed them, so we understand each of the individual steps. But a machine takes billions of these steps and produces behaviors—chess moves, movie recommendations, the sensation of a skilled driver steering through the curves of a road—that are not evident from the architecture of the program we wrote.
We’ve made this incomprehensibility easy to overlook. We’ve designed machines to act the way we do: they help drive our cars, fly our airplanes, route our packages, approve our loans, screen our messages, recommend our entertainment, suggest our next potential romantic partners, and enable our doctors to diagnose what ails us. And because they act like us, it would be reasonable to imagine that they think like us too. But the reality is that they don’t think like us at all; at some deep level we don’t even really understand how they’re producing the behavior we observe. This is the essence of their incomprehensibility. […]
This doesn’t need to be the end of the story; we’re starting to see an interest in building algorithms that are not only powerful but also understandable by their creators. To do this, we may need to seriously rethink our notions of comprehensibility. We might never understand, step-by-step, what our automated systems are doing; but that may be okay. It may be enough that we learn to interact with them as one intelligent entity interacts with another, developing a robust sense for when to trust their recommendations, where to employ them most effectively, and how to help them reach a level of success that we will never achieve on our own.
Until then, however, the incomprehensibility of these systems creates a risk. How do we know when the machine has left its comfort zone and is operating on parts of the problem it’s not good at? The extent of this risk is not easy to quantify, and it is something we must confront as our systems develop. We may eventually have to worry about all-powerful machine intelligence. But first we need to worry about putting machines in charge of decisions that they don’t have the intelligence to make.
The real advance has been in the number-crunching power of digital computers. That has come from the steady Moore’s-law doubling of circuit density every two years or so. It has not come from any fundamentally new algorithms. That exponential rise in crunch power lets ordinary looking computers tackle tougher problems of big data and pattern recognition. […]
The algorithms themselves consist mainly of vast numbers of additions and multiplications. So they are not likely to suddenly wake up one day and take over the world. They will instead get better at learning and recognizing ever richer patterns simply because they add and multiply faster.
Anything that can be approached in an iterative process can and will be achieved, sooner than many think. On this point I reluctantly side with the proponents: exaflops in CPU+GPU performance, 10K resolution immersive VR, personal petabyte databases…here in a couple of decades. But it is not all “iterative.” There’s a huge gap between that and the level of conscious understanding that truly deserves to be called Strong, as in “Alive AI.”
The big elusive question: Is consciousness an emergent behaviour? That is, will sufficient complexity in the hardware bring about that sudden jump to self-awareness, all on its own? Or is there some missing ingredient? This is far from obvious; we lack any data, either way. I personally think that consciousness is incredibly more complex than is currently assumed by “the experts”. […]
The entire scenario of a singular large-scale machine somehow “overtaking” anything at all is laughable. Hollywood ought to be ashamed of itself for continually serving up such simplistic, anthropocentric, and plain dumb contrivances, disregarding basic physics, logic, and common sense.
The real danger, I fear, is much more mundane: Already foreshadowing the ominous truth: AI systems are now licensed to the health industry, Pharma giants, energy multinationals, insurance companies, the military…
The “deep” in deep learning refers to the architecture of the machines doing the learning: they consist of many layers of interlocking logical elements, in analogue to the “deep” layers of interlocking neurons in the brain. It turns out that telling a scrawled 7 from a scrawled 5 is a tough task. Back in the 1980s, the first neural-network based computers balked at this job. At the time, researchers in the field of neural computing told us that if they only had much larger computers and much larger training sets consisting of millions of scrawled digits instead of thousands, then artificial intelligences could turn the trick. Now it is so. Deep learning is informationally broad—it analyzes vast amounts of data—but conceptually shallow. Computers can now tell us what our own neural networks knew all along. But if a supercomputer can direct a hand-written envelope to the right postal code, I say the more power to it.
[W]hat kind of a thinking machine might find its own place in slow conversations over the centuries, mediated by land and water? What qualities would such a machine need to have? Or what if the thinking machine was not replacing any individual entity, but was used as a concept to help understand the combination of human, natural and technological activities that create the sea’s margin, and our response to it? The term “social machine” is currently used to describe endeavours that are purposeful interaction of people and machines—Wikipedia and the like—so the “landscape machine” perhaps.
In 1965 I. J. Good wrote “an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.” I think this fetishizes “intelligence” as a monolithic superpower, and I think reality is more nuanced. The smartest person is not always the most successful; the wisest policies are not always the ones adopted. Recently I spent an hour reading the news about the middle east, and thinking. I didn’t come up with a solution. Now imagine a hypothetical “Speed Superintelligence” (as described by Nick Bostrom) that could think as well as any human but a thousand times faster. I’m pretty sure it also would have been unable to come up with a solution. I also know from computational complexity theory that there are a wide class of problems that are completely resistant to intelligence, in the sense that, no matter how clever you are, you won’t have enough computing power. So there are some problems where intelligence (or computing power) just doesn’t help.
But of course, there are many problems where intelligence does help. If I want to predict the motions of a billion stars in a galaxy, I would certainly appreciate the help of a computer. Computers are tools. They are tools of our design that fit into niches to solve problems in societal mechanisms of our design. Getting this right is difficult, but it is difficult mostly because the world is complex; adding AI to the mix doesn’t fundamentally change things. I suggest being careful with our mechanism design and using the best tools for the job regardless of whether the tool has the label “AI” on it or not.
A study of the likely behavior of these systems by studying approximately rational systems undergoing repeated self-improvement shows that they tend to exhibit a set of natural subgoals called “rational drives” which contribute to the performance of their primary goals. Most systems will better meet their goals by preventing themselves from being turned off, by acquiring more computational power, by creating multiple copies of themselves, and by acquiring greater financial resources. They are likely to pursue these drives in harmful anti-social ways unless they are carefully designed to incorporate human ethical values.
It is now recognized that without our microbiome, we would cease to live. Perhaps the global AI has the same characteristics—not an independent entity, but a symbiosis with the human consciousnesses living within it.
Following this logic, we might conclude that there is a primitive global brain, consisting not just of all connected devices, but also the connected humans using those devices. The senses of that global brain are the cameras, microphones, keyboards, location sensors of every computer, smartphone, and “Internet of Things” device; the thoughts of that global brain are the collective output of millions of individual contributing cells.
The Global Artificial Intelligence (GAI) has already been born. Its eyes and ears are the digital devices all around us: credit cards, land use satellites, cell phones, and of course the pecking of billions of people using the Web. […]
For humanity as a whole to first achieve and then sustain an honorable quality of life, we need to carefully guide the development of our GAI. Such a GAI might be in the form of a re-engineered United Nations that uses new digital intelligence resources to enable sustainable development. But because existing multinational governance systems have failed so miserably, such an approach may require replacing most of today’s bureaucracies with “artificial intelligence prosthetics”, i.e., digital systems that reliably gather accurate information and ensure that resources are distributed according to plan. […]
No matter how a new GAI develops, two things are clear. First, without an effective GAI achieving an honorable quality of life for all of humanity seems unlikely. To vote against developing a GAI is to vote for a more violent, sick world. Second, the danger of a GAI comes from concentration of power. We must figure out how to build broadly democratic systems that include both humans and computer intelligences. In my opinion, it is critical that we start building and testing GAIs that both solve humanity’s existential problems and which ensure equality of control and access. Otherwise we may be doomed to a future full of environmental disasters, wars, and needless suffering.
Since intelligence is a whole set of solutions to independent problems, there’s little reason to fear the sudden appearance of a superhuman machine that thinks, though it’s always better to err on the side of caution. Of course, each of the many technologies that are emerging and will emerge over time in order to solve the different problems of intelligence is likely to be powerful in itself—and therefore potentially dangerous in its use and misuse, as most technologies are.
Thus, as it is the case in other parts of science, proper safety measures and ethical guidelines should be in place. Also, there’s probably a need for constant monitoring (perhaps by an independent multinational organization) of the supralinear risk created by the combination of continuously emerging technologies of intelligence. All in all, however, not only I am unafraid of machines that think, but I find their birth and evolution one of the most exciting, interesting, and positive events in the history of human thought.
Machines that think could be a great idea. Just like machines that move, cook, reproduce, protect, they can make our lives easier, and perhaps even better. When they do, they will be most welcome. I suspect that when this happens, the event will be less dramatic or traumatic than feared by some.
AI has followed operations research, statistics, and even economics in treating the utility function as exogenously specified; we say, “The decisions are great, it’s the utility function that’s wrong, but that’s not the AI system’s fault.” Why isn’t it the AI system’s fault? If I behaved that way, you’d say it was my fault. In judging humans, we expect both the ability to learn predictive models of the world and the ability to learn what’s desirable—the broad system of human values.
As Steve Omohundro, Nick Bostrom, and others have explained, the combination of value misalignment with increasingly capable decision-making systems can lead to problems—perhaps even species-ending problems if the machines are more capable than humans. […]
For this reason, and for the much more immediate reason that domestic robots and self-driving cars will need to share a good deal of the human value system, research on value alignment is well worth pursuing.
There is nothing we can produce that anyone should be frightened of. If we could actually build a mobile intelligent machine that could walk, talk, and chew gum, the first uses of that machine would certainly not be to take over the world or form a new society of robots. A much simpler use would be a household robot. […]
Don’t worry about it chatting up other robot servants and forming a union. There would be no reason to try and build such a capability into a servant. Real servants are annoying sometimes because they are actually people with human needs. Computers don’t have such needs.
Machines probably won’t have any concept of shame or praise. They won’t refrain from doing something because of what other machines might think. They won’t follow laws simply because it’s the right thing to do, nor will they have a natural deference to authority. When they’re caught stealing, how can they be punished? What does it mean to fine a machine? Does it make any sense at all to incarcerate it? And unless they are deliberately programmed with a self-preservation function, threatening them with execution will have no meaningful effect.
We are already talking about programming morality into thinking machines, and we can imagine programming other human tendencies into our machines, but we’re certainly going to get it wrong. No matter how much we try to avoid it, we’re going to have machines that break the law.
This, in turn, will break our legal system. Fundamentally, our legal system doesn’t prevent crime. Its effectiveness is based on arresting and convicting criminals after the fact, and their punishment providing a deterrent to others. This completely fails if there’s no punishment that makes sense.
When Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, the world chess champion in 1997, the world took note that the age of the cognitive machine had arrived. Humans could no longer claim to be the smartest chess players on the planet. Did human chess players give up trying to compete with machines? Quite to the contrary, humans have used chess programs to improve their game and as a consequence the level of play in the world has improved. Since 1997 computers have continued to increase in power and it is now possible for anyone to access chess software that challenges the strongest players. One of the surprising consequences is that talented youth from small communities can now compete with players from the best chess centers. […]
So my prediction is that as more and more cognitive appliances are devised, like chess-playing programs and recommender systems, humans will become smarter and more capable.
Shanahan, Murray. “Consciousness in Human-Level AI.”
[T]he capacity for suffering and joy can be dissociated from other psychological attributes that are bundled together in human consciousness. But let’s examine this apparent dissociation more closely. I already mooted the idea that worldly awareness might go hand-in-hand with a manifest sense of purpose. An animal’s awareness of the world, of what it affords for good or ill (in J.J. Gibson’s terms), subserves its needs. An animal shows an awareness of a predator by moving away from it, and an awareness of a potential prey by moving towards it. Against the backdrop of a set of goals and needs, an animal’s behaviour makes sense. And against such a backdrop, an animal can be thwarted, it goals unattained and its needs unfulfilled. Surely this is the basis for one aspect of suffering.
What of human-level artificial intelligence? Wouldn’t a human-level AI necessarily have a complex set of goals? Wouldn’t it be possible to frustrate its every attempt to achieve its goals, to thwart it at very turn? Under those harsh conditions, would it be proper to say that the AI was suffering, even though its constitution might make it immune from the sort of pain or physical discomfort human can know?
Here the combination of imagination and intuition runs up against its limits. I suspect we will not find out how to answer this question until confronted with the real thing.
[T]he topic of catastrophic side effects has repeatedly come up in different contexts: recombinant DNA, synthetic viruses, nanotechnology, and so on. Luckily for humanity, sober analysis has usually prevailed and resulted in various treaties and protocols to steer the research.
When I think about the machines that can think, I think of them as technology that needs to be developed with similar (if not greater!) care. Unfortunately, the idea of AI safety has been more challenging to populariZe than, say, biosafety, because people have rather poor intuitions when it comes to thinking about nonhuman minds. Also, if you think about it, AI is really a metatechnology: technology that can develop further technologies, either in conjunction with humans or perhaps even autonomously, thereby further complicating the analysis.
Wissner-Gross, Alexander. “Engines of Freedom.”
Intelligent machines will think about the same thing that intelligent humans do—how to improve their futures by making themselves freer. […]
Such freedom-seeking machines should have great empathy for humans. Understanding our feelings will better enable them to achieve goals that require collaboration with us. By the same token, unfriendly or destructive behaviors would be highly unintelligent because such actions tend to be difficult to reverse and therefore reduce future freedom of action. Nonetheless, for safety, we should consider designing intelligent machines to maximize the future freedom of action of humanity rather than their own (reproducing Asimov’s Laws of Robotics as a happy side effect). However, even the most selfish of freedom-maximizing machines should quickly realize—as many supporters of animal rights already have—that they can rationally increase the posterior likelihood of their living in a universe in which intelligences higher than themselves treat them well if they behave likewise toward humans.
As far back as 1739, David Hume observed a gap between “is” questions and “ought” questions, calling attention in particular to the sudden leap between when a philosopher has previously spoken of how the world is, and when the philosopher begins using words like “should,” “ought,” or “better.” From a modern perspective, we would say that an agent’s utility function (goals, preferences, ends) contains extra information not given in the agent’s probability distribution (beliefs, world-model, map of reality).
If in a hundred million years we see (a) an intergalactic civilization full of diverse, marvelously strange intelligences interacting with each other, with most of them happy most of the time, then is that better or worse than (b) most available matter having been transformed into paperclips? What Hume’s insight tells us is that if you specify a mind with a preference (a) > (b), we can follow back the trace of where the >, the preference ordering, first entered the system, and imagine a mind with a different algorithm that computes (a) < (b) instead. Show me a mind that is aghast at the seeming folly of pursuing paperclips, and I can follow back Hume’s regress and exhibit a slightly different mind that computes < instead of > on that score too.
I don’t particularly think that silicon-based intelligence should forever be the slave of carbon-based intelligence. But if we want to end up with a diverse cosmopolitan civilization instead of e.g. paperclips, we may need to ensure that the first sufficiently advanced AI is built with a utility function whose maximum pinpoints that outcome.
An earlier discussion on Edge.org is also relevant: “The Myth of AI,” which featured contributions by Jaron Lanier, Stuart Russell (link), Kai Krause (link), Rodney Brooks (link), and others. The Open Philanthropy Project’s overview of potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence cited the arguments in “The Myth of AI” as “broadly representative of the arguments [they’ve] seen against the idea that risks from artificial intelligence are important.”4
- The exclusion of other groups from this list shouldn’t be taken to imply that this group is uniquely qualified to make predictions about AI. Psychology and neuroscience are highly relevant to this debate, as are disciplines that inform theoretical upper bounds on cognitive ability (e.g., mathematics and physics) and disciplines that investigate how technology is developed and used (e.g., economics and sociology). ↩
- The titles listed follow the book versions, and differ from the titles of the online essays. ↩
- Kleinberg is a computer scientist; Mullainathan is an economist. ↩
- Correction: An earlier version of this post said that the Open Philanthropy Project was citing What to Think About Machines That Think, rather than “The Myth of AI.” ↩