DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of Research Questions for Robust and Beneficial AI

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Survey of Research Questions for Robust and Beneficial AI AsurveyofresearchquestionsforrobustandbeneficialAI 1 Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) research has explored a variety of problems and approaches since its inception, but for the last 20 years or so has been focused on the problems surrounding the construction of intelligent agents—systems that perceive and act in some environment. In this context, the criterion for intelligence is related to statistical and economic notions of rationality—colloquially, the ability to make good decisions, plans, or inferences. The adoption of probabilistic representations and statistical learning methods has led to a large degree of integration and cross-fertilization between AI, machine learning, statistics, control theory, neuroscience, and other fields. The establishment of shared theoretical frameworks, combined with the availability of data and processing power, has yielded remarkable successes in various component tasks such as speech recognition, image classification, autonomous vehicles, machine translation, legged locomotion, and question-answering systems. As capabilities in these areas and others cross the threshold from laboratory research to economically valuable technologies, a virtuous cycle takes hold whereby even small improvements in performance are worth large sums of money, prompting greater investments in research. There is now a broad consensus that AI research is progressing steadily, and that its impact on society is likely to increase. The potential benefits are huge, since everything that civilization has to o↵er is a product of human intelligence; we cannot predict what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI may provide, but the eradication of disease and poverty are not unfathomable. Because of the great potential of AI, it is valuable to investigate how to reap its benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls. The progress in AI research makes it timely to focus research not only on making AI more capable, but also on maximizing the societal benefit of AI. Such considerations motivated the AAAI 2008–09 Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures [61] and other projects and community e↵orts on AI impacts. These constitute a significant expansion of the field of AI itself, which up to now has focused largely on techniques that are neutral with respect to purpose. The present document can be viewed as a natural continuation of these e↵orts, focusing on identifying research directions that can help maximize the societal benefit of AI. This research is by necessity interdisciplinary, because it involves both society and AI. It ranges from economics, law, and philosophy to computer security, formal methods and, of course, various branches of AI itself. The focus is on delivering AI that is beneficial to society and robust in the sense that the benefits are guaranteed: our AI systems must do what we want them to do. This document is an attempt to lay out some of the research topics that we think will be most useful to do now in order to shape the future impact of AI. We will surely find that some questions are less useful or timely than others, and some important ones are missing. We hope this guide will be a helpful source of suggestions, but also that potential grantees won’t be discouraged from approaching us with similarly relevant topics we didn’t think of. We will try to publish future versions that are up to date with progress in the field. We are very grateful to the many people who have contributed to this document, in particular Daniel Dewey, Stuart Russell, and Max Tegmark for their invaluable work on the research priorities document, Luke Muehlhauser for his list of potential strategic research projects, Nate Soares and MIRI for their technical agenda, and the MIRIxOxford research workshop analyzing and expanding on the MIRI technical agenda. Many people at FLI have contributed lists of additional research projects and directions, including Jim Babcock, Steve Greidinger, J´anos Kram´ar, Richard Mallah and Max Tegmark, and many more have provided 1 helpful feedback and suggestions, including Anthony Aguirre, Erik Brynjolfsson, Meia Chita-Tegmark, Daniel Dewey, Owain Evans, Eric Gastfriend, Ales Flidr, Katja Grace, Evan Hefner, Viktoriya Krakovna, Colleen Messing, Howard Messing, Chase Moores, Luke Muehlhauser, Se´an Oh´ Eigeartaigh,´ Tristan Plumb, Stuart Russell, Murray Shanahan, Nate Soares, Marin Soljacic, Michele Reilly, Anders Sandberg, John Sturm, Jaan Tallinn, Jacob Trefethen, Nick Ryder, Michael Vassar, and Alexander Wissner-Gross, Eliezer Yudkowsky. Thanks also to Nick Bostrom for writing the excellent and seminal book “Superintelligence”. Like the rest of the document, this list is at an early stage - we’re looking forward to receiving your constructive feedback and comments! 2 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Short-term research priorities 4 2.1 OptimizingAI’sEconomicImpact ................................. 4 2.1.1 Measuring and Forecasting Economic Impact of Automation and AI . 4 2.1.2 Policyresearch ........................................ 5 2.1.3 Managing potential adverse e↵ects of automation and AI . 5 2.2 LawandEthicsResearch ...................................... 6 2.3 Computer Science Research for Robust AI . 7 2.3.1 Verification (“Did I build the system right?”) ....................... 7 2.3.2 Validity (“Did I build the right system?”) ......................... 8 2.3.3 Security (“How can I prevent unauthorized access?”) ................... 9 2.3.4 Control (“OK, I built the system wrong, can I fix it?”) .................. 9 3 Long-term research priorities 11 3.1 Someperspectivesonthelongterm. 11 3.2 Verification .............................................. 12 3.3 Validity ................................................ 12 3.3.1 Ethics............................................. 13 3.3.2 Ensuring goal stability . 15 3.4 Security ................................................ 16 3.4.1 Software containment . 17 3.4.2 Psychological containment . 18 3.4.3 Hardware containment . 18 3.4.4 Tripwires:Detection&Response . 19 3.4.5 Detectingintenttodeceive ................................. 19 3.5 Control ................................................ 19 3.5.1 Corrigibility and Domesticity . 20 3.5.2 Safe and Unsafe Agent Architectures . 21 4 Forecasting 23 4.1 Motivation .............................................. 23 4.2 Methodology ............................................. 23 4.3 Forecasting AI progress . 24 4.4 Forecasting AI takeo↵........................................ 26 4.5 Brain emulations (uploads) . 26 5 Policy and Collaboration 27 3 2 Short-term research priorities 2.1 Optimizing AI’s Economic Impact The successes of industrial applications of AI, from manufacturing to information services, demonstrate a growing impact on the economy, although there is disagreement about the exact nature of this impact and on how to distinguish between the e↵ects of AI and those of other information technologies. Many economists and computer scientists agree that there is valuable research to be done on how to maximize the economic benefits of AI while mitigating adverse e↵ects, which could include increased inequality and unemployment [72, 21, 39, 40, 107, 84, 69]. Such considerations motivate a range of research directions, spanning areas from economics to psychology. Below are a few examples that should by no means be interpreted as an exhaustive list. 2.1.1 Measuring and Forecasting Economic Impact of Automation and AI When and in what order should we expect various jobs to become automated [39]? How will this a↵ect the employment and wages of various professions, including less skilled workers, creatives, and di↵erent kinds of information workers? Some have argued that AI is likely to greatly increase the overall wealth of humanity as a whole [21]. However, increased automation may push income distribution further towards a power law [22], and the resulting disparity may fall disproportionately along lines of race, class, and gender; research anticipating the economic and societal impact of such disparity could be useful. 1. It is possible that economic measures such as real GDP per capita do not accurately capture the benefits and detriments of heavily AI-and-automation-based economies, making these metrics unsuitable for policy purposes [72]. Research on improved metrics could be useful for decision-making. 2. What has been the historical record on jobs being displaced by automation? What have the average rate and distribution of displacement been - has it been clustered in time, industry, and geography? How long before displaced workers found new jobs? Did displacement contribute to inequality? 3. Is there anything di↵erent about the advancement of artificial intelligence happening now that would lead us to expect a change from our centuries-long historical record on jobs being displaced by automa- tion? 4. What factors make an industry more amenable or less amenable to automation? Machines histori- cally performed rote mass-production, but we’ve been expanding their capabilities with advances in information processing and artificial intelligence. 5. Which markets are most susceptible to disruption as automation advances? Significant parts of the economy – including finance, insurance, actuarial, and many consumer markets – could experience upheaval through use of AI techniques to learn, model, and predict agent actions. These markets might be identified by a combination of high complexity and high rewards for navigating that complexity [69]. Are there other features? 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Infinite Ethics
    INFINITE ETHICS Nick Bostrom Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University [Published in Analysis and Metaphysics, Vol. 10 (2011): pp. 9-59] [This is the final version. Earlier versions: 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009] www.nickbostrom.com ABSTRACT Aggregative consequentialism and several other popular moral theories are threatened with paralysis: when coupled with some plausible assumptions, they seem to imply that it is always ethically indifferent what you do. Modern cosmology teaches that the world might well contain an infinite number of happy and sad people and other candidate value-bearing locations. Aggregative ethics implies that such a world contains an infinite amount of positive value and an infinite amount of negative value. You can affect only a finite amount of good or bad. In standard cardinal arithmetic, an infinite quantity is unchanged by the addition or subtraction of any finite quantity. So it appears you cannot change the value of the world. Modifications of aggregationism aimed at resolving the paralysis are only partially effective and cause severe side effects, including problems of “fanaticism”, “distortion”, and erosion of the intuitions that originally motivated the theory. Is the infinitarian challenge fatal? 1. The challenge 1.1. The threat of infinitarian paralysis When we gaze at the starry sky at night and try to think of humanity from a “cosmic point of view”, we feel small. Human history, with all its earnest strivings, triumphs, and tragedies can remind us of a colony of ants, laboring frantically to rearrange the needles of their little ephemeral stack. We brush such late-night rumination aside in our daily life and analytic 1 philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks
    journal of international humanitarian legal studies 11 (2020) 295-310 brill.com/ihls Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks Hin-Yan Liu, Kristian Lauta and Matthijs Maas Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract This paper explores the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic through the framework of exis- tential risks – a class of extreme risks that threaten the entire future of humanity. In doing so, we tease out three lessons: (1) possible reasons underlying the limits and shortfalls of international law, international institutions and other actors which Covid-19 has revealed, and what they reveal about the resilience or fragility of institu- tional frameworks in the face of existential risks; (2) using Covid-19 to test and refine our prior ‘Boring Apocalypses’ model for understanding the interplay of hazards, vul- nerabilities and exposures in facilitating a particular disaster, or magnifying its effects; and (3) to extrapolate some possible futures for existential risk scholarship and governance. Keywords Covid-19 – pandemics – existential risks – global catastrophic risks – boring apocalypses 1 Introduction: Our First ‘Brush’ with Existential Risk? All too suddenly, yesterday’s ‘impossibilities’ have turned into today’s ‘condi- tions’. The impossible has already happened, and quickly. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, both directly and as manifested through the far-reaching global societal responses to it, signal a jarring departure away from even the © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18781527-01102004Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:13:00AM via free access <UN> 296 Liu, Lauta and Maas recent past, and suggest that our futures will be profoundly different in its af- termath.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement
    18 TheWisdomofNature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg∗ Abstract Human beings are a marvel of evolved complexity. Such systems can be difficult to enhance. When we manipulate complex evolved systems, which are poorly understood, our interventions often fail or backfire. It can appear as if there is a ‘‘wisdom of nature’’ which we ignore at our peril. Sometimes the belief in nature’s wisdom—and corresponding doubts about the prudence of tampering with nature, especially human nature—manifest as diffusely moral objections against enhancement. Such objections may be expressed as intuitions about the superiority of the natural or the troublesomeness of hubris, or as an evaluative bias in favor of the status quo. This chapter explores the extent to which such prudence-derived anti-enhancement sentiments are justified. We develop a heuristic, inspired by the field of evolutionary medicine, for identifying promising human enhancement interventions. The heuristic incorporates the grains of truth contained in ‘‘nature knows best’’ attitudes while providing criteria for the special cases where we have reason to believe that it is feasible for us to improve on nature. 1.Introduction 1.1. The wisdom of nature, and the special problem of enhancement We marvel at the complexity of the human organism, how its various parts have evolved to solve intricate problems: the eye to collect and pre-process ∗ Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy and James Martin 21st Century School, Oxford University. Forthcoming in Enhancing Humans, ed. Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 376 visual information, the immune system to fight infection and cancer, the lungs to oxygenate the blood.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety of Artificial Superintelligence
    Environment. Technology. Resources. Rezekne, Latvia Proceedings of the 12th International Scientific and Practical Conference. Volume II, 180-183 Safety of Artificial Superintelligence Aleksejs Zorins Peter Grabusts Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering Rezekne Academy of Technologies Rezekne Academy of Technologies Rezekne, Latvia Rezekne, Latvia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—The paper analyses an important problem of to make a man happy it will do it with the fastest and cyber security from human safety perspective which is usu- cheapest (in terms of computational resources) without ally described as data and/or computer safety itself with- using a common sense (for example killing of all people out mentioning the human. There are numerous scientific will lead to the situation that no one is unhappy or the predictions of creation of artificial superintelligence, which decision to treat human with drugs will also make him could arise in the near future. That is why the strong neces- sity for protection of such a system from causing any farm happy etc.). Another issue is that we want computer to arises. This paper reviews approaches and methods already that we want, but due to bugs in the code computer will presented for solving this problem in a single article, analy- do what the code says, and in the case of superintelligent ses its results and provides future research directions. system, this may be a disaster. Keywords—Artificial Superintelligence, Cyber Security, The next sections of the paper will show the possible Singularity, Safety of Artificial Intelligence. solutions of making superintelligence safe to humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger, Personhood and Technology
    Comparative Philosophy Volume 2, No. 2 (2011): 23-49 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 www.comparativephilosophy.org THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY: HEIDEGGER, PERSONHOOD AND TECHNOLOGY MAHON O‟BRIEN ABSTRACT: This paper argues that a number of entrenched posthumanist positions are seriously flawed as a result of their dependence on a technical interpretive approach that creates more problems than it solves. During the course of our discussion we consider in particular the question of personhood. After all, until we can determine what it means to be a person we cannot really discuss what it means to improve a person. What kinds of enhancements would even constitute improvements? This in turn leads to an examination of the technical model of analysis and the recurring tendency to approach notions like personhood using this technical model. In looking to sketch a Heideggerian account of personhood, we are reaffirming what we take to be a Platonic skepticism concerning technical models of inquiry when it comes to certain subjects. Finally we examine the question as to whether the posthumanist looks to apply technology‟s benefits in ways that we have reflectively determined to be useful or desirable or whether it is technology itself (or to speak as Heidegger would – the “essence” of technology) which prompts many posthumanists to rely on an excessively reductionist view of the human being. Keywords: Heidegger, posthumanism, technology, personhood, temporality A significant number of Posthumanists1 advocate the techno-scientific enhancement of various human cognitive and physical capacities. Recent trends in posthumanist theory have witnessed the collective emergence, in particular, of a series of analytically oriented philosophers as part of the Future of Humanity Institute at O‟BRIEN, MAHON: IRCHSS Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability Law for Present and Future Robotics Technology Trevor N
    Liability Law for Present and Future Robotics Technology Trevor N. White and Seth D. Baum Global Catastrophic Risk Institute http://gcrinstitute.org * http://sethbaum.com Published in Robot Ethics 2.0, edited by Patrick Lin, George Bekey, Keith Abney, and Ryan Jenkins, Oxford University Press, 2017, pages 66-79. This version 10 October 2017 Abstract Advances in robotics technology are causing major changes in manufacturing, transportation, medicine, and a number of other sectors. While many of these changes are beneficial, there will inevitably be some harms. Who or what is liable when a robot causes harm? This paper addresses how liability law can and should account for robots, including robots that exist today and robots that potentially could be built at some point in the near or distant future. Already, robots have been implicated in a variety of harms. However, current and near-future robots pose no significant challenge for liability law: they can be readily handled with existing liability law or minor variations thereof. We show this through examples from medical technology, drones, and consumer robotics. A greater challenge will arise if it becomes possible to build robots that merit legal personhood and thus can be held liable. Liability law for robot persons could draw on certain precedents, such as animal liability. However, legal innovations will be needed, in particular for determining which robots merit legal personhood. Finally, a major challenge comes from the possibility of future robots that could cause major global catastrophe. As with other global catastrophic risks, liability law could not apply, because there would be no post- catastrophe legal system to impose liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification Schemas for Artificial Intelligence Failures
    Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX https://doi.org/XXXX/XXXX Classification Schemas for Artificial Intelligence Failures Peter J. Scott1 and Roman V. Yampolskiy2 1 Next Wave Institute, USA 2 University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA [email protected], [email protected] Abstract In this paper we examine historical failures of artificial intelligence (AI) and propose a classification scheme for categorizing future failures. By doing so we hope that (a) the responses to future failures can be improved through applying a systematic classification that can be used to simplify the choice of response and (b) future failures can be reduced through augmenting development lifecycles with targeted risk assessments. Keywords: artificial intelligence, failure, AI safety, classification 1. Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) is estimated to have a $4-6 trillion market value [1] and employ 22,000 PhD researchers [2]. It is estimated to create 133 million new roles by 2022 but to displace 75 million jobs in the same period [6]. Projections for the eventual impact of AI on humanity range from utopia (Kurzweil, 2005) (p.487) to extinction (Bostrom, 2005). In many respects AI development outpaces the efforts of prognosticators to predict its progress and is inherently unpredictable (Yampolskiy, 2019). Yet all AI development is (so far) undertaken by humans, and the field of software development is noteworthy for unreliability of delivering on promises: over two-thirds of companies are more likely than not to fail in their IT projects [4]. As much effort as has been put into the discipline of software safety, it still has far to go. Against this background of rampant failures we must evaluate the future of a technology that could evolve to human-like capabilities, usually known as artificial general intelligence (AGI).
    [Show full text]
  • Letters to the Editor
    Articles Letters to the Editor Research Priorities for is a product of human intelligence; we puter scientists, innovators, entrepre - cannot predict what we might achieve neurs, statisti cians, journalists, engi - Robust and Beneficial when this intelligence is magnified by neers, authors, professors, teachers, stu - Artificial Intelligence: the tools AI may provide, but the eradi - dents, CEOs, economists, developers, An Open Letter cation of disease and poverty are not philosophers, artists, futurists, physi - unfathomable. Because of the great cists, filmmakers, health-care profes - rtificial intelligence (AI) research potential of AI, it is important to sionals, research analysts, and members Ahas explored a variety of problems research how to reap its benefits while of many other fields. The earliest signa - and approaches since its inception, but avoiding potential pitfalls. tories follow, reproduced in order and as for the last 20 years or so has been The progress in AI research makes it they signed. For the complete list, see focused on the problems surrounding timely to focus research not only on tinyurl.com/ailetter. - ed. the construction of intelligent agents making AI more capable, but also on Stuart Russell, Berkeley, Professor of Com - — systems that perceive and act in maximizing the societal benefit of AI. puter Science, director of the Center for some environment. In this context, Such considerations motivated the “intelligence” is related to statistical Intelligent Systems, and coauthor of the AAAI 2008–09 Presidential Panel on standard textbook Artificial Intelligence: a and economic notions of rationality — Long-Term AI Futures and other proj - Modern Approach colloquially, the ability to make good ects on AI impacts, and constitute a sig - Tom Dietterich, Oregon State, President of decisions, plans, or inferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Catastrophic Risks Survey
    GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom At the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference in Oxford (17‐20 July, 2008) an informal survey was circulated among participants, asking them to make their best guess at the chance that there will be disasters of different types before 2100. This report summarizes the main results. The median extinction risk estimates were: Risk At least 1 million At least 1 billion Human extinction dead dead Number killed by 25% 10% 5% molecular nanotech weapons. Total killed by 10% 5% 5% superintelligent AI. Total killed in all 98% 30% 4% wars (including civil wars). Number killed in 30% 10% 2% the single biggest engineered pandemic. Total killed in all 30% 10% 1% nuclear wars. Number killed in 5% 1% 0.5% the single biggest nanotech accident. Number killed in 60% 5% 0.05% the single biggest natural pandemic. Total killed in all 15% 1% 0.03% acts of nuclear terrorism. Overall risk of n/a n/a 19% extinction prior to 2100 These results should be taken with a grain of salt. Non‐responses have been omitted, although some might represent a statement of zero probability rather than no opinion. 1 There are likely to be many cognitive biases that affect the result, such as unpacking bias and the availability heuristic‒‐well as old‐fashioned optimism and pessimism. In appendix A the results are plotted with individual response distributions visible. Other Risks The list of risks was not intended to be inclusive of all the biggest risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments to Michael Jackson's Keynote on Determining Energy
    Comments to Michael Jackson’s Keynote on Determining Energy Futures using Artificial Intelligence Prof Sirkka Heinonen Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC) University of Turku ENERGIZING FUTURES 13–14 June 2018 Tampere, Finland AI and Energy • Concrete tools: How Shaping Tomorrow answers the question How can AI help? • Goal of foresight crystal clear: Making better decisions today Huge Challenge – The Challenge The world will need to cut energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 -even as the population grows by more than two billion people Bold Solution on the Horizon The Renewable Energy Transition Companies as pioneers on energy themes, demand, supply, consumption • Google will reach 100% RE for its global operations this year • GE using AI to boost different forms of energy production and use tech-driven data reports to anticipate performance and maintenance needs around the world BUT …also the role of governments, cities and citizens …NGOs, media… new actors should be emphasised AI + Energy + Peer-to-Peer Society • The transformation of the energy system aligns with the principles of a Peer-to-Peer Society. • Peer-to-peer practices are based on the active participation and self-organisation of citizens. Citizens share knowledge, skills, co-create, and form new peer groups. • Citizens will use their capabilities also to develop energy-related products and services Rethinking Concepts Buildings as Power stations – global (economic) opportunity to construct buildings that generate, store and release solar energy
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Engineering in AI
    MIRI MACHINE INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Exploratory Engineering in AI Luke Muehlhauser Machine Intelligence Research Institute Bill Hibbard University of Wisconsin Madison Space Science and Engineering Center Muehlhauser, Luke and Bill Hibbard. 2013. “Exploratory Engineering in AI” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57 No. 9, Pages 32–34. doi:10.1145/2644257 This version contains minor changes. Luke Muehlhauser, Bill Hibbard We regularly see examples of new artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. Google’s self- driving car has safely traversed thousands of miles. Watson beat the Jeopardy! cham- pions, and Deep Blue beat the chess champion. Boston Dynamics’ Big Dog can walk over uneven terrain and right itself when it falls over. From many angles, software can recognize faces as well as people can. As their capabilities improve, AI systems will become increasingly independent of humans. We will be no more able to monitor their decisions than we are now able to check all the math done by today’s computers. No doubt such automation will produce tremendous economic value, but will we be able to trust these advanced autonomous systems with so much capability? For example, consider the autonomous trading programs which lost Knight Capital $440 million (pre-tax) on August 1st, 2012, requiring the firm to quickly raise $400 mil- lion to avoid bankruptcy (Valetkevitch and Mikolajczak 2012). This event undermines a common view that AI systems cannot cause much harm because they will only ever be tools of human masters. Autonomous trading programs make millions of trading decisions per day, and they were given sufficient capability to nearly bankrupt one of the largest traders in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence As a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk
    The Singularity Institute Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk Eliezer Yudkowsky The Singularity Institute Yudkowsky, Eliezer. 2008. Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In Global catastrophic risks, ed. Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Cirkovic, 308–345. New York: Oxford University Press. This version contains minor changes. Eliezer Yudkowsky 1. Introduction By far the greatest danger of Artificial Intelligence is that people conclude too early that they understand it. Of course this problem is not limited to the field of AI. Jacques Monod wrote: “A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it” (Monod 1975). My father, a physicist, complained about people making up their own theories of physics; he wanted to know why people did not make up their own theories of chemistry. (Answer: They do.) Nonetheless the problem seems tobe unusually acute in Artificial Intelligence. The field of AI has a reputation formaking huge promises and then failing to deliver on them. Most observers conclude that AI is hard; as indeed it is. But the embarrassment does not stem from the difficulty. It is difficult to build a star from hydrogen, but the field of stellar astronomy does not have a terrible reputation for promising to build stars and then failing. The critical inference is not that AI is hard, but that, for some reason, it is very easy for people to think they know far more about Artificial Intelligence than they actually do. In my other chapter for Global Catastrophic Risks, “Cognitive Biases Potentially Affect- ing Judgment of Global Risks” (Yudkowsky 2008), I opened by remarking that few people would deliberately choose to destroy the world; a scenario in which the Earth is destroyed by mistake is therefore very worrisome.
    [Show full text]