MIRI was founded in 2000 on the premise that creating¹ Friendly AI might be a particularly efficient way to do as much good as possible.

Some developments since then include:

• The field of “effective altruism” — trying not just to do good but to do as much good as possible² — has seen more publicity and better research than ever before, in particular through the work of GiveWell, the Center for Effective Altruism, the philosopher Peter Singer, and the community at Less Wrong.³
• In his recent PhD dissertation, Nick Beckstead has clarified the assumptions behind the claim that shaping the far future (e.g. via Friendly AI) is overwhelmingly important.
• Due to research performed by MIRI, the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI), and others, our strategic situation with regard to machine superintelligence is more clearly understood, and FHI’s Nick Bostrom has organized much of this work in a forthcoming book.⁴
• MIRI’s Eliezer Yudkowsky has begun to describe in more detail which open research problems constitute “Friendly AI research,” in his view.

Given these developments, we are in a better position than ever before to assess the value of Friendly AI research as effective altruism.

Still, this is a difficult question. It is challenging enough to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-malaria nets or direct cash transfers. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of attempts to shape the far future (e.g. via Friendly AI) is even more difficult than that. Hence, this short post sketches an argument that can be given in favor of Friendly AI research as effective altruism, to enable future discussion, and is not intended as a thorough analysis.

Read more »

1. In this post, I talk about the value of humanity in general creating Friendly AI, though MIRI co-founder Eliezer Yudkowsky usually talks about MIRI in particular — or at least, a functional equivalent — creating Friendly AI. This is because I am not as confident as Yudkowsky that it is best for MIRI to attempt to build Friendly AI. When updating MIRI’s bylaws in early 2013, Yudkowsky and I came to a compromise on the language of MIRI’s mission statement, which now reads: “[MIRI] exists to ensure that the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence has a positive impact. Thus, the charitable purpose of [MIRI] is to: (a) perform research relevant to ensuring that smarter-than-human intelligence has a positive impact; (b) raise awareness of this important issue; (c) advise researchers, leaders and laypeople around the world; and (d) as necessary, implement a smarter-than-human intelligence with humane, stable goals” (emphasis added). My own hope is that it will not be necessary for MIRI (or a functional equivalent) to attempt to build Friendly AI itself. But of course I must remain open to the possibility that this will be the wisest course of action as the first creation of AI draws nearer. There is also the question of capability: few people think that a non-profit research organization has much chance of being the first to build AI. I worry, however, that the world’s elites will not find it fashionable to take this problem seriously until the creation of AI is only a few decades away, at which time it will be especially difficult to develop the mathematics of Friendly AI in time, and humanity will be forced to take a gamble on its very survival with powerful AIs we have little reason to trust. ↩
2. One might think of effective altruism as a straightforward application of decision theory to the subject of philanthropy. Philanthropic agents of all kinds (individuals, groups, foundations, etc.) ask themselves: “How can we choose philanthropic acts (e.g. donations) which (in expectation) will do as much good as possible, given what we care about?” The consensus recommendation for all kinds of choices under uncertainty, including philanthropic choices, is to maximize expected utility (Chater & Oaksford 2012; Peterson 2004; Stein 1996; Schmidt 1998:19). Different philanthropic agents value different things, but decision theory suggests that each of them can get the most of what they want if they each maximize their expected utility. Choices which maximize expected utility are in this sense “optimal,” and thus another term for effective altruism is “optimal philanthropy.” Note that effective altruism in this sense is not too dissimilar from earlier approaches to philanthropy, including high-impact philanthropy (making “the biggest difference possible, given the amount of capital invested“), strategic philanthropy, effective philanthropy, and wise philanthropy. Note also that effective altruism does not say that a philanthropic agent should specify complete utility and probability functions over outcomes and then compute the philanthropic act with the highest expected utility — that is impractical for bounded agents. We must keep in mind the distinction between normative, descriptive, and prescriptive models of decision-making (Baron 2007): “normative models tell us how to evaluate… decisions in terms of their departure from an ideal standard. Descriptive models specify what people in a particular culture actually do and how they deviate from the normative models. Prescriptive models are designs or inventions, whose purpose is to bring the results of actual thinking into closer conformity to the normative model.” The prescriptive question — about what bounded philanthropic agents should do to maximize expected utility with their philanthropic choices — tends to be extremely complicated, and is the subject of most of the research performed by the effective altruism community. ↩
3. See, for example: Efficient Charity, Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others, Politics as Charity, Heuristics and Biases in Charity, Public Choice and the Altruist’s Burden, On Charities and Linear Utility, Optimal Philanthropy for Human Beings, Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately, Money: The Unit of Caring, Optimizing Fuzzies and Utilons: The Altruism Chip Jar, Efficient Philanthropy: Local vs. Global Approaches, The Effectiveness of Developing World Aid, Against Cryonics & For Cost-Effective Charity, Bayesian Adjustment Does Not Defeat Existential Risk Charity, How to Save the World, and What is Optimal Philanthropy? ↩
4. I believe Beckstead and Bostrom have done the research community an enormous service in creating a framework, a shared language, for discussing trajectory changes, existential risks, and machine superintelligence. When discussing these topics with my colleagues, it has often been the case that the first hour of conversation is spent merely trying to understand what the other person is saying — how they are using the terms and concepts they employ. Beckstead’s and Bostrom’s recent work should enable clearer and more efficient communication between researchers, and therefore greater research productivity. Though I am not aware of any controlled, experimental studies on the effect of shared language on research productivity, a shared language is widely considered to be of great benefit for any field of research, and I shall provide a few examples of this claim which appear in print. Fuzzi et al. (2006): “The use of inconsistent terms can easily lead to misunderstandings and confusion in the communication between specialists from different [disciplines] of atmospheric and climate research, and may thus potentially inhibit scientific progress.” Hinkel (2008): “Technical languages enable their users, e.g. members of a scientific discipline, to communicate efficiently about a domain of interest.” Madin et al. (2007): “terminological ambiguity slows scientific progress, leads to redundant research efforts, and ultimately impedes advances towards a unified foundation for ecological science.” ↩

Strong AI appears to be the topic of the week. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones thinks AIs will be as smart as humans by 2040. Karl Smith at Forbes and “M.S.” at The Economist seem to roughly concur with Drum on this timeline. Moshe Vardi, the editor-in-chief of the world’s most-read computer science magazine, predicts that “by 2045 machines will be able to do if not any work that humans can do, then a very significant fraction of the work that humans can do.”

But predicting AI is more difficult than many people think.

To explore these difficulties, let’s start with a 2009 bloggingheads.tv conversation between MIRI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky and MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson, author of the excellent Quantum Computing Since Democritus. Early in that dialogue, Yudkowsky asked:

It seems pretty obvious to me that at some point in [one to ten decades] we’re going to build an AI smart enough to improve itself, and [it will] “foom” upward in intelligence, and by the time it exhausts available avenues for improvement it will be a “superintelligence” [relative] to us. Do you feel this is obvious?

Aaronson replied:

The idea that we could build computers that are smarter than us… and that those computers could build still smarter computers… until we reach the physical limits of what kind of intelligence is possible… that we could build things that are to us as we are to ants — all of this is compatible with the laws of physics… and I can’t find a reason of principle that it couldn’t eventually come to pass…

The main thing we disagree about is the time scale… a few thousand years [before AI] seems more reasonable to me.

Those two estimates — several decades vs. “a few thousand years” — have wildly different policy implications.

If there’s a good chance that AI will replace humans at the steering wheel of history in the next several decades, then we’d better put our gloves on and get to work making sure that this event has a positive rather than negative impact. But if we can be pretty confident that AI is thousands of years away, then we needn’t worry about AI for now, and we should focus on other global priorities. Thus it appears that “When will AI be created?” is a question with high value of information for our species.

Let’s take a moment to review the forecasting work that has been done, and see what conclusions we might draw about when AI will likely be created.

Read more »