Closing Thought–21Jun17

I, Robot!

Before I begin I would like to report that TS Cindy is dumping lots of rain and a bit of wind but nothing too bad…..the local rivers will flood in the next day or so but they leave their banks if some one flushes a toilet upstream….the garden is taking a beating it may not return……oh well…..such is the life in the tropics.

Onto more important things…….

Remember the 3 Laws of Robotics?

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

There has been many leaps forward in AI research……some thought it was about time for some “laws”…….so at a recent meeting of the minds some goals and values and principles were set forth……

1) Research Goal: The goal of AI research should be to create not undirected intelligence, but beneficial intelligence.

2) Research Funding: Investments in AI should be accompanied by funding for research on ensuring its beneficial use, including thorny questions in computer science, economics, law, ethics, and social studies, such as:

  • How can we make future AI systems highly robust, so that they do what we want without malfunctioning or getting hacked?
  • How can we grow our prosperity through automation while maintaining people’s resources and purpose?
  • How can we update our legal systems to be more fair and efficient, to keep pace with AI, and to manage the risks associated with AI?
  • What set of values should AI be aligned with, and what legal and ethical status should it have?

3) Science-Policy Link: There should be constructive and healthy exchange between AI researchers and policy-makers.

4) Research Culture: A culture of cooperation, trust, and transparency should be fostered among researchers and developers of AI.

5) Race Avoidance: Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards

Source: AI Principles – Future of Life Institute

Will this make the science better or just a way to shut critics up?

Maybe a special session should be called to discuss the ethics of AI….I am sure somewhere the subject of morality will rear its head.

BTW….any tech types that have a plan or an idea about this subject please share……

That is it from me for the day…..time for a snack and a beer….and watch it rain…..be well, be safe….chuq

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Closing Thought–21Jun17

  1. Well, as seemingly pro-active as that set of rules might be toward the safety of humanity from artificial intelligence.. you can’t.. ever.. stifle scientific creativity. It is the inherent nature of man to expand knowledge and application of knowledge. Hence, the first rule, the research goal, will never work as a blanket restriction. It could certainly be a process mechanism… but not a safeguard. You can’t attempt to define man by setting limitations on how he/she pursues knowledge. You can, however, set rules and limitations on how to apply/use that knowledge in society. In other words, in order to protect humanity from the risks suggested in the movie in utilizing A.I., we need to develop A.I. to the point where the risk becomes more apparent so that man can set usage limitations.
    Human development got where its at today by pushing relentlessly the borders of science and exploration.

      1. I would think we would need to “get there” first in order to determine more accurately how the process/system can be abused. One person’s abuse is another person’s opportunity. It’s akin to the scene from Jurassic Park where Ian remarks, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Would that concept be applied to the idea (morality) of developing the science to create simply an entertainment medium for profit.. or is it a scientific quest with benefits for all of humanity? That’s not specified in the film; more acceptable plot vilifying “profit” yet again. There is nothing wrong with profit or personal gain unless it’s at the expense of some greater good.

      2. At what point does profit become greed.. and who sets that threshold?

      3. Me! When it causes death or dismemberment so that a new Bugatti can be bought….when I am elected king that will cease….election will be televised…LOl chuq

      4. You’d make a great capitalist Republican, chuq. 🙂

      5. STOP! My grandfather would roll over in his grave if he heard that….you really know how to hurt a guy…LOL chuq

      6. Reminds me of something from Tom Waits song “Whistling Past The Graveyard”….”there is no devil only God when he is drunk”….chuq

      7. Ugh.. having been in the funeral business there was a funeral where I did indeed roll a body into a grave. But that’s a whole other story not for the faint of heart. Memories. Thanks for that, chuq.

  2. When I read ‘TS Cindy is dumping’, I thought for a moment that you were talking about a male-female transsexual, looking for a restroom in North Carolina…
    As for robots, until they invent a reliable solar cell, or perpetual motion, I don’t worry too much. I just won’t put them on charge, if they get too uppity. 😉
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. After 8 inches of rain today and 4 from yesterday we are pretty damn water logged and more to come by this evening….oh goodie….when they look like Catherine Denueve (is that how we spell it?)…then she may do as she likes….LOL chuq

    2. Haha! Good one, Pete. It’s one thing having to put up with uppity humans but it makes no sense building a robot to be a pain in the ass.

      1. Makes me recall Harcourt Fenton Mudd.. and his wife he could turn on and off.

      2. I managed to shut down for a re-boot connection with the Mother ship.. thanks.

  3. I had read all of the Robot stories by Asimov by my 18th birthday, having begun doing so at age 10, & waited breathlessly for each new one, & can tell you the concept of the Three Laws was thoroughly explored by both the scientific community, and the science fiction writers of the era (1935 to 1985); there have been college courses on the subject for decades, all of which acknowledge the danger of AI, as well as its promise.

    The simplest way to state the danger is, at some point in the development of AI, the robot will become capable of programming itself. Any robotic solutions will necessarily include methods of replenishing the power that enables them to function, analogous to our own consumption of food, so, it must be accepted, at some point, they’ll become independent of humans altogether, & will learn how to solve their own problems, which their AI minds will identify according to the machine logic they have (already) created for their own use.

    If one cannot see the danger of that point in their development, well, it isn’t for me to explain… but there are any number of books and documented discussions on that very subject, most of which, when understood, will make anyone question the practice of doing ANYTHING simply because we can…. The nature of reality, which we tend to deny, or ignore, simply does not permit that sort of assumptions about “potentiality”… In short, it can always get worse than you imagine, if you don’t know the potential consequences… which describes most of humanity’s fields of exploration of Nature, the danger is, by definition, greater than you know, or can know…. GMO’s, DNA restructuring, atomic fission, and, now, AI, the creation of LIfe itself…. all are more dangerous to us, for what we do NOT know, than any benefits they have engendered thus far in their development….

    Sounds as if Jesus might have known that, eh? “Forgive them, for they know not what they do….”

    I don’t think we humans have quite reached the point where we can imagine ourselves having either the expertise, or, the ethical right, to duplicate the creation of Life in our universe, whether that creation was by chance, or by design… Either way, we don’t quite have it together enough to think we’re all that… at least, not by MY calculations…

    gigoid, the dubious

    😎

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s