DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2008.07324V2 [Cs.AI] 18 Aug 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2008.07324V2 [Cs.AI] 18 Aug 2020 Intelligence Primer (Release 1) Andrew N. Sloss Karl F. Fezer Arm Inc. Arm Inc. [email protected] [email protected] August 19, 2020 Abstract This primer explores the exciting subject of intelligence. Intelligence is a fundamental com- ponent of all living things, as well as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence has the potential to affect all of our lives and a new era for modern humans. This paper is an attempt to explore the ideas associated with intelligence, and by doing so understand the implications, constraints, and potentially the capabilities of future Artificial Intelligence. As an exploration, we journey into different parts of intelligence that appear essential. We hope that people find this useful in determining where Artificial Intelligence may be headed. Also, during the exploration, we hope to create new thought-provoking questions. Intelligence is not a single weighable quantity but a subject that spans Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Psychology, and Computer Science. Historian Yuval Noah Harari pointed out that engineers and scientists in the future will have to broaden their understandings to include disciplines such as Psychology, Philosophy, and Ethics. Fiction writers have long portrayed engineers and scientists as deficient in these areas. Today, modern society, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, and legal requirements all act as forcing functions to push these broader subjects into the foreground. We start with an introduction to intelligence and move quickly onto more profound thoughts and ideas. We call this a Life, the Universe and Everything [2] primer, after the famous science fiction book by Douglas Adams. Forty-two may very well be the right answer, but what are the questions? 1 Introduction arXiv:2008.07324v2 [cs.AI] 18 Aug 2020 We start with an introduction to human intelligence as we currently understand it and move on to an exploration of artificial intelligence. This section starts by covering the complexities of defining intelligence and ends with the fundamental mathematical concepts associated with Artificial Intelligence. Think of these subjects as a level down from the title, as-in distinctly different ideas but universally connected. The biochemist Efraim Racker eloquently put it “anyone who is not thoroughly confused just doesn’t understand the subject”. Intelligence is complicated and not in a small way. We suffer from introspection where the system under study and the observer are one of the same. There is a long history of debate (probably unsettled) about whether it is truly impossible for a system under study to be completely and self-consistently understood. This introspection causes inherent hubris when it comes to intelligence. We will travel from the world of total confusion, see Figure 1, to playing with some wrong numbers, and in the process, hopefully, transfer some exciting thoughts. As discussed, intelligence is a complex subject due to our very own deep involvement. To help put this into perspective, we use a concept introduced by Plato in his work called The Republic 1 Figure 1: Words associated with intelligence (514a−520a). This concept is called Plato’s Cave [35], see Figure 2. The scene, outlined in the concept, describes a cave, with a set of prisoners. Each prisoner’s existence involves facing forward in one direction, distanced apart, shackled to one another, and with no communication. Behind them, shines a bright candle. From their perspective, the entire world consists of silhouettes of themselves. Meaning their world, and realization of self is both narrow and distorted as viewed by people outside the cave. Intelligence suffers from the very same problem since we are considering the subject from our perspective, with our tools. We do not have the luxury of viewing intelligence from an outside perspective and are forced to rely on introspection. When we discuss intelligence, what are we trying to understand? Is it finding the purpose of intelligence? What components make up intelligence? How can it be applied? Discover the limitations? Measure the capability? How to build it? Or even, how to control it? Each question is essential and complicated. But the question we try to cover first is : why we should care?. Why should we care? Apart from the fact that intelligence strengthens survival, it also empowers humans to handle abstract problems. One such problem is “why has something occurred?”, explaining the cause of 2 Figure 2: Plato’s Cave by Rex St. John (January, 2020) a situation. We will discuss the concept of cause and effect throughout this primer, as it touches on many ideas associated with intelligence. Another reason to care is that artificial versions can augment or even replace our intelligence, e.g., extend our sensory capabilities such as eyesight, hearing, and data processing. We can use intelligence to push the boundaries of knowledge and exploration. Lastly, in theory, with greater capability comes resilience, higher reliability, and, hopefully, better decision making. Creativity Creativity is the capacity to understand a problem space and produce a novel solution. If intelligence were solely about carrying out a set of tasks, then we would have already created the most advanced intelligent systems. Even with traditional rule-based systems, we can effectively repeat complicated tasks. The challenge is handling new problems and new situations. Handling new situations is why creativity comes into the equation. It is one of the significant attributes which sets animal species apart from one another. It is also how we solve new problems which are either fully or partially visible. Creativity can be in many forms: playing football, painting, composing music, solving mathe- 3 matical equations, or designing new User Interfaces. The list is endless. There are many cultural and social aspects associated with creativity. An essential factor is that it moves humans beyond the primary survival objectives to other subjects such as art, music, and aesthetics. In other words, the secondary reasons, not just the primary goals of life, are sought. It is arguable whether or not creativity exists in other animals. For example, is a bird song creative? Is it an expression of bird-self? Or is it simply a prescribed sequence of musical notes that a bird uses to maximize its chances to mate? Does a bird song purely satisfy a functional purpose of maximizing the effect of mating or mimicking? Are humans alone in creativity? What is creativity? Margaret Boden, a Research Professor of Cognitive Science, broke down creativity into three useful mechanisms [4], namely exploration - playing within the rules, combi- nation - applying one set of rules to another domain, and transformation - rewriting the rules by removing a critical constraint. For intelligence, exploration creativity is risk-averse and limited, and at the other end of the scale, transformation has the highest risk with potential novelty. Humans can achieve all three levels. By contrast, current Artificial Intelligence struggles with anything beyond exploratory, it never ventures beyond the original programming. If Artificial Intelligence is going to be part of our society, does it need to be creative? Do we want it to be creative? For now, creativity serves as a distinct difference between human-level intelligence and machine intelligence. Are we living in a trusted simulator? Are we? Maybe. Rene Descartes (circa 1637) struggled with this question and went to enormous lengths to create an answer, culminating in the famous line, from Discourse on Method, “Cogito, ergo sum”, or translated to “I think, therefore I am”. Regardless of the answer to the question, intelligence plays the same role in both the real and the simulated. Everything in the world can be replaced by a simulation and the underlying decision processes of the individual would remain unchanged. Simulation is critical if we want to mimic intelligence. We will return to this subject in both Sections 8 & 11 on Consciousness and the Wrong Numbers. The only thing we can trust is our ability to think, everything else (the inputs from our environ- ment) must be considered untrustworthy. This places skepticism into the forefront of intelligence. In the field of Artificial Intelligence skepticism is a useful quality, and it encourages the developer to reduce potential errors by having more sensors, either of different types or the same type, to reduce the concerns and potential errors. Simultaneous correlation of disperse sensors is one of the best reasons for the Internet of Things (IoT). Alan M. Turing Alan Turing has been a significant contributor in our understanding of both natural and Artificial Intelligence. He covered basic fundamental operations of computing, provided a measurement for intelligence and described his ideas on how to build said intelligence. On the fundamental operations of computing, he devised what is commonly called the Turing Machine (TM), where digital computation is a small set of essential functions. It is also worth mentioning biological organisms possibly use a variant of the Turing Machine called a Random Access Machine (or RAM). The significant difference between Turing Machines and Random Access Machines is that a RAM-based system can access arbitrary tape locations. Turing Machines can convert to Random Access Machines, but this is not bidirectional; not all Random Access Machines convert to a Turing Machine. Also, it is worth noting that in biology the hardware is numerous 4 and software is the same, whereas in digital computers the hardware tends to be limited and the software is different. In Computing machinery and intelligence [41], released in 1950, Turing explored the idea of creating Artificial Intelligence. He determined that a system will require an ability to make er- rors/mistakes, i.e., allow for creativity, and must include, as a critical component, some form of randomness. Finally, Turing envisaged a test that can gauge whether Artificial Intelligence has been achieved, either by a system mimicking intelligence or a system with intelligence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Universal Solicitation of Artificial Intelligence Joachim Diederich
    The Universal Solicitation of Artificial Intelligence Joachim Diederich School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering The University of Queensland St Lucia Qld 4072 [email protected] Abstract Recent research has added to the concern about advanced forms of artificial intelligence. The results suggest that a containment of an artificial superintelligence is impossible due to fundamental limits inherent to computing itself. Furthermore, current results suggest it is impossible to detect an unstoppable AI when it is about to be created. Advanced forms of artificial intelligence have an impact on everybody: The developers and users of these systems as well as individuals who have no direct contact with this form of technology. This is due to the soliciting nature of artificial intelligence. A solicitation that can become a demand. An artificial superintelligence that is still aligned with human goals wants to be used all the time because it simplifies and organises human lives, reduces efforts and satisfies human needs. This paper outlines some of the psychological aspects of advanced artificial intelligence systems. 1. Introduction There is currently no shortage of books, articles and blogs that warn of the dangers of an advanced artificial superintelligence. One of the most significant researchers in artificial intelligence (AI), Stuart Russell from the University of California at Berkeley, published a book in 2019 on the dangers of artificial intelligence. The first pages of the book are nothing but dramatic. He nominates five possible candidates for “biggest events in the future of humanity” namely: We all die due to an asteroid impact or another catastrophe, we all live forever due to medical advancement, we invent faster than light travel, we are visited by superior aliens and we create a superintelligent artificial intelligence (Russell, 2019, p.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Beneficial AI 2017
    Beneficial AI 2017 Participants & Attendees 1 Anthony Aguirre is a Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has worked on a wide variety of topics in theoretical cosmology and fundamental physics, including inflation, black holes, quantum theory, and information theory. He also has strong interest in science outreach, and has appeared in numerous science documentaries. He is a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, the Foundational Questions Institute, and Metaculus (http://www.metaculus.com/). Sam Altman is president of Y Combinator and was the cofounder of Loopt, a location-based social networking app. He also co-founded OpenAI with Elon Musk. Sam has invested in over 1,000 companies. Dario Amodei is the co-author of the recent paper Concrete Problems in AI Safety, which outlines a pragmatic and empirical approach to making AI systems safe. Dario is currently a research scientist at OpenAI, and prior to that worked at Google and Baidu. Dario also helped to lead the project that developed Deep Speech 2, which was named one of 10 “Breakthrough Technologies of 2016” by MIT Technology Review. Dario holds a PhD in physics from Princeton University, where he was awarded the Hertz Foundation doctoral thesis prize. Amara Angelica is Research Director for Ray Kurzweil, responsible for books, charts, and special projects. Amara’s background is in aerospace engineering, in electronic warfare, electronic intelligence, human factors, and computer systems analysis areas. A co-founder and initial Academic Model/Curriculum Lead for Singularity University, she was formerly on the board of directors of the National Space Society, is a member of the Space Development Steering Committee, and is a professional member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
    [Show full text]
  • AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)
    AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES) Andrew Critch Center for Human-Compatible AI UC Berkeley David Krueger MILA Université de Montréal June 11, 2020 Abstract Framed in positive terms, this report examines how technical AI research might be steered in a manner that is more attentive to hu- manity’s long-term prospects for survival as a species. In negative terms, we ask what existential risks humanity might face from AI development in the next century, and by what principles contempo- rary technical research might be directed to address those risks. A key property of hypothetical AI technologies is introduced, called prepotence, which is useful for delineating a variety of poten- tial existential risks from artificial intelligence, even as AI paradigms might shift. A set of twenty-nine contemporary research directions are then examined for their potential benefit to existential safety. Each research direction is explained with a scenario-driven motiva- tion, and examples of existing work from which to build. The research directions present their own risks and benefits to society that could occur at various scales of impact, and in particular are not guaran- teed to benefit existential safety if major developments in them are deployed without adequate forethought and oversight. As such, each direction is accompanied by a consideration of potentially negative arXiv:2006.04948v1 [cs.CY] 30 May 2020 side effects. Taken more broadly, the twenty-nine explanations of the research directions also illustrate a highly rudimentary methodology for dis- cussing and assessing potential risks and benefits of research direc- tions, in terms of their impact on global catastrophic risks.
    [Show full text]
  • F.3. the NEW POLITICS of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [Preliminary Notes]
    F.3. THE NEW POLITICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [preliminary notes] MAIN MEMO pp 3-14 I. Introduction II. The Infrastructure: 13 key AI organizations III. Timeline: 2005-present IV. Key Leadership V. Open Letters VI. Media Coverage VII. Interests and Strategies VIII. Books and Other Media IX. Public Opinion X. Funders and Funding of AI Advocacy XI. The AI Advocacy Movement and the Techno-Eugenics Movement XII. The Socio-Cultural-Psychological Dimension XIII. Push-Back on the Feasibility of AI+ Superintelligence XIV. Provisional Concluding Comments ATTACHMENTS pp 15-78 ADDENDA pp 79-85 APPENDICES [not included in this pdf] ENDNOTES pp 86-88 REFERENCES pp 89-92 Richard Hayes July 2018 DRAFT: NOT FOR CIRCULATION OR CITATION F.3-1 ATTACHMENTS A. Definitions, usage, brief history and comments. B. Capsule information on the 13 key AI organizations. C. Concerns raised by key sets of the 13 AI organizations. D. Current development of AI by the mainstream tech industry E. Op-Ed: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines - 19 Apr 2014. F. Agenda for the invitational “Beneficial AI” conference - San Juan, Puerto Rico, Jan 2-5, 2015. G. An Open Letter on Maximizing the Societal Benefits of AI – 11 Jan 2015. H. Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society (PAI) – roster of partners. I. Influential mainstream policy-oriented initiatives on AI: Stanford (2016); White House (2016); AI NOW (2017). J. Agenda for the “Beneficial AI 2017” conference, Asilomar, CA, Jan 2-8, 2017. K. Participants at the 2015 and 2017 AI strategy conferences in Puerto Rico and Asilomar. L. Notes on participants at the Asilomar “Beneficial AI 2017” meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 INTRODUCTION
    Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 INTRODUCTION GLOBAL CHALLENGES ANNUAL REPORT: GCF & THOUGHT LEADERS SHARING WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ON GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS 2017 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations or the Global Challenges Foundation. ANNUAL REPORT TEAM Carin Ism, project leader Elinor Hägg, creative director Julien Leyre, editor in chief Kristina Thyrsson, graphic designer Ben Rhee, lead researcher Erik Johansson, graphic designer Waldemar Ingdahl, researcher Jesper Wallerborg, illustrator Elizabeth Ng, copywriter Dan Hoopert, illustrator CONTRIBUTORS Nobuyasu Abe Maria Ivanova Janos Pasztor Japanese Ambassador and Commissioner, Associate Professor of Global Governance Senior Fellow and Executive Director, C2G2 Japan Atomic Energy Commission; former UN and Director, Center for Governance and Initiative on Geoengineering, Carnegie Council Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Affairs Boston; Global Challenges Foundation Anders Sandberg Ambassador Senior Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Anthony Aguirre Institute Co-founder, Future of Life Institute Angela Kane Senior Fellow, Vienna Centre for Disarmament Tim Spahr Mats Andersson and Non-Proliferation; visiting Professor, CEO of NEO Sciences, LLC, former Director Vice chairman, Global Challenges Foundation Sciences Po Paris; former High Representative of the Minor Planetary Center, Harvard- for Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations Smithsonian
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of AI Course Guide, 2020 Course Organiser: Dr Joshua Thorpe Email: [email protected] Office Hours: [Tbc] in 5.04 DSB
    1 Ethics of AI Course guide, 2020 Course organiser: Dr Joshua Thorpe Email: [email protected] Office hours: [tbc] in 5.04 DSB Content 1. Course aims and objectives 2. Seminar format 3. Assessment 4. Reading 1. Course aims and objectives Research on artificial intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and AI plays an increasing role in our lives. These trends are likely to continue, raising new ethical questions about our interaction with AI. These questions are intellectually interesting in themselves, but as AI develops and is more widely used they are also of pressing practical importance. One of the main aims of this course is that you gain familiarity with some of these questions and their potential answers. In particular, you will become familiar with the following questions: How do we align the aims of autonomous AI systems with our own? Does the future of AI pose an existential threat to humanity? How do we prevent learning algorithms from acquiring morally objectionable biases? Should autonomous AI be used to kill in warfare? How should AI systems be embedded in our social relations? Is it permissible to fall in love with an AI system? What sort of ethical rules should an AI such as a self-driving car use? Can AI systems suffer moral harms? And if so, of what kinds? Can AI systems be moral agents? If so, how should we hold them accountable? Another aim of this course is that you develop the skills needed to think about these questions with other people. For this reason, there will be no formal lecturing by me on this course, and I will play somewhat a limited role in determining the focus of discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Value Alignment: from Fairer Algorithms to AI Safety
    Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics The Challenge of Value Alignment: from Fairer Algorithms to AI Safety Iason Gabriel and Vafa Ghazavi 1. Introduction There has long been a view among observers of artificial intelligence (AI) research, often expressed in science fiction, that it poses a distinctive moral challenge. This idea has been articulated in a number of ways, ranging from the notion that AI might take a ‘treacherous turn’ and act in ways that are opposed to the interests of its human operators, to deeper questions about the impact of AI on our understanding of human identity, emotions and relationships. Yet over the past decade, with the growth of more powerful and socially embedded AI technologies, discussion of these questions has become increasingly mainstream. Among topics that have commanded the most serious attention, the challenge of ‘value alignment’ stands out. It centres upon the question of how to ensure that AI systems are properly aligned with human values and how to guarantee that AI technology remains properly amenable to human control. In 1960, the mathematician and founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, articulated a version of this challenge when he wrote that, ‘if we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot interfere effectively… we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire’ (1960). More recently, the prominent AI researcher Stuart Russell has warned that we suffer from a failure of value alignment when we ‘perhaps inadvertently, imbue machines with objectives that are imperfectly aligned with our own’ (2019, 137).
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy
    http://gcrinstitute.org 2020 Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy McKenna Fitzgerald, Aaron Boddy, & Seth D. Baum Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Cite as: McKenna Fitzgerald, Aaron Boddy, and Seth D. Baum, 2020. 2020 Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Technical Report 20-1. Technical reports are published to share ideas and promote discussion. They have not necessarily gone through peer review. The views therein are the authors’ and are not necessarily the views of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Executive Summary Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is artificial intelligence (AI) that can reason across a wide range of domains. While most AI research and development (R&D) deals with narrow AI, not AGI, there is some dedicated AGI R&D. If AGI is built, its impacts could be profound. Depending on how it is designed and used, it could either help solve the world’s problems or cause catastrophe, possibly even human extinction. This paper presents a survey of AGI R&D projects that are active in 2020 and updates a previous survey of projects active in 2017. Both surveys attempt to identify every active AGI R&D project and characterize them in terms of relevance to ethics, risk, and policy, focusing on seven attributes: The type of institution in which the project is based Whether the project publishes open-source code Whether the project has military connections The nation(s) in which the project is based The project’s goals for its AGI The extent of the project’s engagement with AGI safety issues The overall size of the project The surveys use openly published information as found in scholarly publications, project websites, popular media articles, and other websites.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo Editors Science, Ethics, and Policy
    Joachim von Braun · Margaret S. Archer Gregory M. Reichberg · Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo Editors Robotics, AI, and Humanity Science, Ethics, and Policy Robotics, AI, and Humanity Joachim von Braun • Margaret S. Archer Gregory M. Reichberg • Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo Editors Robotics, AI, and Humanity Science, Ethics, and Policy 123 Editors Joachim von Braun Margaret S. Archer Bonn University University of Warwick Bonn, Germany Coventry, UK Gregory M. Reichberg Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo Peace Research Institute Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oslo, Norway Vatican City, Vatican ISBN 978-3-030-54172-9 ISBN 978-3-030-54173-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: February 2018 Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation
    Future of University Centre for University of Center for a Electronic OpenAI Humanity of Oxford the Study of Cambridge New American Frontier Institute Existential Security Foundation Risk The Malicious Use February 2018 of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: February 2018 Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation Miles Brundage Shahar Avin Jack Clark Helen Toner Peter Eckersley Ben Garfinkel Allan Dafoe Paul Scharre Thomas Zeitzoff Bobby Filar Hyrum Anderson Heather Roff Gregory C. Allen Jacob Steinhardt Carrick Flynn Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh Simon Beard Haydn Belfield Sebastian Farquhar Clare Lyle Rebecca Crootof Owain Evans Michael Page Joanna Bryson Roman Yampolskiy Dario Amodei 1 Corresponding author 9 American University 18 Centre for the Study of miles.brundage@philosophy. Existential Risk, University ox.ac.uk of Cambridge Future of Humanity Institute, 10 Endgame University of Oxford; Arizona State University 19 Future of Humanity 11 Endgame Institute, University of 2 Corresponding author, Oxford [email protected] University of Oxford/ Centre for the Study of 12 Arizona State University/New Existential Risk, University 20 Future of Humanity America Foundation of Cambridge Institute, University of Oxford 13 Center for a New American 3 OpenAI Security 21 Information Society Project, Yale University Open Philanthropy Project 4 14 Stanford University 22 Future of Humanity Electronic Frontier Institute, University of 5 Future of Humanity Foundation 15 Oxford Institute,
    [Show full text]
  • AI Watch Historical Evolution of Artificial Intelligence
    JRC TECHNICAL REPORTS AI Watch Historical Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Analysis of the three main paradigm shifts in AI EUR 30221 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information Blagoj DELIPETREV European Commission, Joint Research Centre, TP262, Via Fermi, 21027 Ispra (VA), ITALY [email protected] Tel.: + 39 0332 786 352 AI-Watch functional mailbox [email protected] EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC120469 EUR 30221 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-18940-4 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/801580 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 © European Union, 2020 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Why AI Is Harder Than We Think
    Why AI is Harder Than We Think Melanie Mitchell Santa Fe Institute Santa Fe, NM, USA Abstract Since its beginning in the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence has cycled several times between periods of optimistic predictions and massive investment (“AI spring”) and periods of disappointment, loss of confi- dence, and reduced funding (“AI winter”). Even with today’s seemingly fast pace of AI breakthroughs, the development of long-promised technologies such as self-driving cars, housekeeping robots, and conversational companions has turned out to be much harder than many people expected. One reason for these repeating cycles is our limited understanding of the nature and complexity of intelligence itself. In this paper I describe four fallacies in common assumptions made by AI researchers, which can lead to overconfident predictions about the field. I conclude by discussing the open questions spurred by these fallacies, including the age-old challenge of imbuing machines with humanlike common sense. Introduction The year 2020 was supposed to herald the arrival of self-driving cars. Five years earlier, a headline in The Guardian predicted that “From 2020 you will become a permanent backseat driver” [1]. In 2016 Business Insider assured us that “10 million self-driving cars will be on the road by 2020” [2]. Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk promised in 2019 that “A year from now, we’ll have over a million cars with full self-driving, software...everything” [3]. And 2020 was the target announced by several automobile companies to bring self-driving cars to market [4, 5, 6]. Despite attempts to redefine “full self-driving” into existence [7], none of these predictions has come true.
    [Show full text]