How many times do you wake up without a ringing alarm gently scratching your brain? How often do you meet a friend for a brainstorming on something you are in doubt of, and how often do you ask Google instead? When was the last time you got lost in the city and enjoyed the adventure instead of checking the GPS on your smartphone for a way out? Those are answers I do not expect very soon because I know it all was long ago you maybe do not even remember . And who can blame you? We are all rowing in the same boat called society. If one stops, the boat won't stop too. You keep moving with it but not winning anything from that trip. So one day you will wake up in the middle of the ocean called life, without a paddle or the muscle to be able use one. Concretely, if there is any power you need not to be crushed by the foot of the society, then technology can give it to you. This is why one should have the flexibility to admit that the interface of our time is continuously changing, an as technology is one of the main reason for that, we must try to keep up with it.
The contemporary urban citizen considering himself a soldier in a cold war is not really a new idea. We tend to think we are fighting time, when our fight is actually a race. The only problem is, we are trying to outrun something that is, in the same time, before, after and side to us. So we
come to walk in the footsteps of this something way much bigger than us. It is not possible to increase one's steps. But one can make them worth , increase the value of every second to the finish line – YOUR finish line – time continues its race after reaching no matter whose finish line. And the truth is, it is not doing sports in there but its job, the job WE assigned to its name. And here is where technology plays vitamin and stimulates one in the process of filling seconds with something that matters. Whether one wants to survive, define himself as an active entity of the society, or leave a trail in time (pressing his own steps on those he follows in chasing the big giant), technology is the answer. So it should be clear that we are talking about efficiency here.
As humans became aware of their ephemeral condition, they started to understand the importance of sharing, receiving and recycling both ideas and products. One's life is not long enough to build his own little universe from the very beginning, and then to be able to merge it with the bigger one surrounding himself. There are the principles technology relies on: be efficient not stubborn, reuse and do not create what already exists! Available technology is our Prometheus. One should not reject its fire only because he wants to create his own fire. Another wise idea would be not playing Zeus. And so, not commanding the raven of one's closed mind to eat Prometheus liver and never want to hear of him again. Don't be refractory to new. Classics are good, but only when it comes to art.
After accepting technology it is also important to understand it. And thus, not come to the common point where we fear what we do not understand. A field in the technology area that puts this kind of problems would be Artificial Intelligence. This is why I will try to focus, in this paper, on this technical subject that raises more and more ethical issues. So we come to have technology
and philosophy facing each other in a war that seems never to come to an end.
Firstly, to avoid falling into the trap of the fisherman fishing unknown-by- size fish and ending by being swallowed by it, we will start with knowing our prey. So what do you think Artificial Intelligence is? Let alone its function of hard-to-do stuff, Artificial Intelligence is the key technology in many of today's novel applications ranging from banking systems that can detect credit fraud to telephones that understand speech and to software systems that notice when you are having problems and give appropriate advice. Even services like Google and Amazon help us find what we want using Artificial Intelligence. They learn both from us and of us.
This being said, a robot couldn't be less than any artificial entity around us that has the means to transform perception into action.
Moving to ethics role, I would agree with Joanna J Bryson and say it would be to “maintain a functional degree of social homogeneity”.
To better view the link between a human and the machine he created, we can see an Artificial Intelligence product as a bicycle. It moved by the two wheels it relies on: technology which puts Artificial in our AI device and the human agent that provides it with Intelligence. Well, then if knowledge and passion form the chain that puts these two wheels together and makes them
trigger, then ethics should be the vaseline that makes this bicycle not to squeaky when it hits the road called community.
We clearly do not know what future brings. So the question here would be: why talking about machine morality should not be considered as a big waste of time? Well, Adam Keiper and Ari N Schulman seem to have 2 reasons to answer this question. The first of them is given by the appearance of more and more activists both in the matter of a potential future Robot Apocalipse and in the one of a Golden Age a proper use of the “smart iron” could bring. And the second reason would be a more practical one: there are (even if not commercialized) more and more smart machines with some degree of autonomy. Sure, they can only be found in the military field, and with humans operating and supervising them. But still their existence is not to be overlooked because of the physical power these devices have, which can result in serious accidents.
The fact that more and more people are concerned about robots taking over the world seems to bring Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's “Robot Apocalipse” to a tragic level of hilarity. That boundary between what's real and what fiction that Harcourt tries to clearly define, seems to be way to vague for a great part of our contemporaries. The confusion here comes from the fiction that exploits what it means to be human (aka what the writer can better understand) and not what it means to be a computer. And if so, we will have to admit that this is sad coming from minds built from the same gray substance as those who descending from the tree have built all this technological empire out of nothing.
There we face also the tendency to overestimate machine capabilities. People don't have enough AI experience. Thus they fail to understand whether if an AI machine is human or not. They can't make the right difference between the two forms of intelligence, and this still leads to mistakes. If we would only review the technology we do have access to nowadays, we will understand what those “robots” we fear so much really are. Then, picturing our smartphones trying to kill us will seem as stupid as flying pigs. Because as God never gave a pig the wings to fly, as do us never provided our phones neither with weapons nor with the hands to use them.
Any gadget will serve the purpose it was created for. And as people are responsible for the assignment of those purposes, they should be the only ones excoriated at some point. The truth is that robots belong to us. Whoever owns and operates a robot is responsible for what it does. This
precisely opinion shares Joanna J Bryson who also think that the very basic mistake people make is “to be afraid of whatever was smartest would <<win>>
somehow”(http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf) . Here appears another problem. There is a big moment consciousness meets the coordinates of our own weak human
nature. A lot of imperfections and unreachable goals are revealed on the axis our character is based on. Here is where the parental syndrome comes out. We want those things we are creating to be everything we can't be. Start to see them as an extension of our personality. Living longer and doing more through out their processors reveals our own contradictory nature. We want them masters and slaves because of the complex we have in filling masters of everything that is given but slaves of limited capabilities in using them. Where is the good in everything being given and allowed if you have a limited length leash around your neck? This is why we need extensions to take what the greedy need for knowledge inside us wants to eat.
Crossing this border of perfecting us as limited beings with robots, identifying ourselves with robots is even worse. We know that people yearn for power and couldn't help our thoughts to fly to the idea that any other intelligent system desires power too. “But we already have calculators that can do math better than us and they don't even take over the pockets they live in, let alone the
world.” as Bryson would say (http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf).
“Even if an AI tries to exterminate humanity”, it is “out right silly” to think that it will make “self-justifying speeches about how humans had their time, but now, as dinosaur, have became obsolete... Only Evil Hollywood AI's do that” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the- problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). We can draw both an idea and an analogy out of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky's slightly ironical reflection. The degree an computer virus intends to make a crash on your PC is comparable to that of a bomb intending to destroy a city. Yudkowsky also tries to highlight the fact that in the unlikely scenario of a robot revolution machines won't act and won't have the reasons a human could have. And so, the discrepancy between the two ways of acting should go to the point robots will be “utterly unconcerned with either wiping out or reforming the
prejudiced, obsolete human being around them.” as Adam Keiper states
(http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). That opens the path to the subject of creating not only intelligent but emotional systems too.
Try to think about the potential flows that can appear without raising an eyebrow. Now remember human errors an fallibilities, such as, for example auditing. Suddenly it doesn't feel so good playing God, does it? The key is not to expect anything from the device you created and thus you will never fear it being imperfect. Remember: a machine should be both replaceable and easy to clone. Backing up all the information they store being also one of the main features we'll have to take into consideration when creating AI. Coming back to emotional machines, one should accept the difficulty of putting a soul into a rigid piece of iron. What a human being is at a time derives from a huge chain of human kind evolution, from what us, as a specie had escalated along time. It is
a little bit too ambitious to think that only using tools technology nowadays provides, one can instill the morality humans inherited after all those history pages written and turned up, in something that is used to make the fork you are eating with. This could be seen as using a screw from every single year of the technological revolution to present. The analogy is coming from the fact that humans keep in their gene in a bigger or smaller degree something of all their ancestors. Sure this comparison has its weak points being made from two different coins of the matter. Seeing robots at the physical level of the screw and humans at the superior one of character. But I think it is clear by now we are neither taking people and robots as being at the same height, nor trying to prove some kind of equality between them.
In addition to all this, how much power of prediction and computation would a robot need to autonomously act in different situations? The truth is that dilemmas and hard choices are imminent in the life of any moral being. As Keiper and Schulman said, “moral reasoning will always be essential and unfinished” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). This being said, it is obvious that no one can guarantee robot's acting correctly from the point of view of ethics, until all ethics issues are solved. The impossibility of doing that leads to a great opacity of robot psychology for us. They will be human beings without human moral failings – no fear, pride, greed, envy, etc. The goal here would be: we succeeded in perfecting bodies and brain, why not purifying souls throughout our machines too?
In conclusion, even if the speed at which Artificial Intelligence entered our lives was unexpectedly big and the impact on public opinion was taking scale over the years, we can't talk about a collision there. In its way to us, this new technology had no obstacles. Our desire for comfort and needs of our superior beings gave it a huge empty place to fulfill. So now we come tosee this place Artificial Intelligence grows its children in, step through its open door and we can't stop wandering if behind this new sun entering the eyes of our ignorance there is another enlightened door or a bottomless pit. And if we come to the conclusion that it keeps opening doors how much will this process last until we come to a dead end, and what this dead end would mean for human kind? Both a vague answer to these questions and the final idea we can draw from all this paper is best shown by the context the entrepreneur Dany Hills offers us by saying: “We are at the point analogous to when singled-celled organisms turned into multi-celled organisms. We are amoeba and we can't figure out what the hell is this thing that we are creating”.
Bibliography:
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/Bryson-Slaves-Book09.pdf
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/ai.html
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/whatisai.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
http://moralmachines.blogspot.ro/
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jag.2010.4.issue-4/jag.2010.020/jag.2010.020.xml
The contemporary urban citizen considering himself a soldier in a cold war is not really a new idea. We tend to think we are fighting time, when our fight is actually a race. The only problem is, we are trying to outrun something that is, in the same time, before, after and side to us. So we
come to walk in the footsteps of this something way much bigger than us. It is not possible to increase one's steps. But one can make them worth , increase the value of every second to the finish line – YOUR finish line – time continues its race after reaching no matter whose finish line. And the truth is, it is not doing sports in there but its job, the job WE assigned to its name. And here is where technology plays vitamin and stimulates one in the process of filling seconds with something that matters. Whether one wants to survive, define himself as an active entity of the society, or leave a trail in time (pressing his own steps on those he follows in chasing the big giant), technology is the answer. So it should be clear that we are talking about efficiency here.
As humans became aware of their ephemeral condition, they started to understand the importance of sharing, receiving and recycling both ideas and products. One's life is not long enough to build his own little universe from the very beginning, and then to be able to merge it with the bigger one surrounding himself. There are the principles technology relies on: be efficient not stubborn, reuse and do not create what already exists! Available technology is our Prometheus. One should not reject its fire only because he wants to create his own fire. Another wise idea would be not playing Zeus. And so, not commanding the raven of one's closed mind to eat Prometheus liver and never want to hear of him again. Don't be refractory to new. Classics are good, but only when it comes to art.
After accepting technology it is also important to understand it. And thus, not come to the common point where we fear what we do not understand. A field in the technology area that puts this kind of problems would be Artificial Intelligence. This is why I will try to focus, in this paper, on this technical subject that raises more and more ethical issues. So we come to have technology
and philosophy facing each other in a war that seems never to come to an end.
Firstly, to avoid falling into the trap of the fisherman fishing unknown-by- size fish and ending by being swallowed by it, we will start with knowing our prey. So what do you think Artificial Intelligence is? Let alone its function of hard-to-do stuff, Artificial Intelligence is the key technology in many of today's novel applications ranging from banking systems that can detect credit fraud to telephones that understand speech and to software systems that notice when you are having problems and give appropriate advice. Even services like Google and Amazon help us find what we want using Artificial Intelligence. They learn both from us and of us.
This being said, a robot couldn't be less than any artificial entity around us that has the means to transform perception into action.
Moving to ethics role, I would agree with Joanna J Bryson and say it would be to “maintain a functional degree of social homogeneity”.
To better view the link between a human and the machine he created, we can see an Artificial Intelligence product as a bicycle. It moved by the two wheels it relies on: technology which puts Artificial in our AI device and the human agent that provides it with Intelligence. Well, then if knowledge and passion form the chain that puts these two wheels together and makes them
trigger, then ethics should be the vaseline that makes this bicycle not to squeaky when it hits the road called community.
We clearly do not know what future brings. So the question here would be: why talking about machine morality should not be considered as a big waste of time? Well, Adam Keiper and Ari N Schulman seem to have 2 reasons to answer this question. The first of them is given by the appearance of more and more activists both in the matter of a potential future Robot Apocalipse and in the one of a Golden Age a proper use of the “smart iron” could bring. And the second reason would be a more practical one: there are (even if not commercialized) more and more smart machines with some degree of autonomy. Sure, they can only be found in the military field, and with humans operating and supervising them. But still their existence is not to be overlooked because of the physical power these devices have, which can result in serious accidents.
The fact that more and more people are concerned about robots taking over the world seems to bring Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's “Robot Apocalipse” to a tragic level of hilarity. That boundary between what's real and what fiction that Harcourt tries to clearly define, seems to be way to vague for a great part of our contemporaries. The confusion here comes from the fiction that exploits what it means to be human (aka what the writer can better understand) and not what it means to be a computer. And if so, we will have to admit that this is sad coming from minds built from the same gray substance as those who descending from the tree have built all this technological empire out of nothing.
There we face also the tendency to overestimate machine capabilities. People don't have enough AI experience. Thus they fail to understand whether if an AI machine is human or not. They can't make the right difference between the two forms of intelligence, and this still leads to mistakes. If we would only review the technology we do have access to nowadays, we will understand what those “robots” we fear so much really are. Then, picturing our smartphones trying to kill us will seem as stupid as flying pigs. Because as God never gave a pig the wings to fly, as do us never provided our phones neither with weapons nor with the hands to use them.
Any gadget will serve the purpose it was created for. And as people are responsible for the assignment of those purposes, they should be the only ones excoriated at some point. The truth is that robots belong to us. Whoever owns and operates a robot is responsible for what it does. This
precisely opinion shares Joanna J Bryson who also think that the very basic mistake people make is “to be afraid of whatever was smartest would <<win>>
somehow”(http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf) . Here appears another problem. There is a big moment consciousness meets the coordinates of our own weak human
nature. A lot of imperfections and unreachable goals are revealed on the axis our character is based on. Here is where the parental syndrome comes out. We want those things we are creating to be everything we can't be. Start to see them as an extension of our personality. Living longer and doing more through out their processors reveals our own contradictory nature. We want them masters and slaves because of the complex we have in filling masters of everything that is given but slaves of limited capabilities in using them. Where is the good in everything being given and allowed if you have a limited length leash around your neck? This is why we need extensions to take what the greedy need for knowledge inside us wants to eat.
Crossing this border of perfecting us as limited beings with robots, identifying ourselves with robots is even worse. We know that people yearn for power and couldn't help our thoughts to fly to the idea that any other intelligent system desires power too. “But we already have calculators that can do math better than us and they don't even take over the pockets they live in, let alone the
world.” as Bryson would say (http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf).
“Even if an AI tries to exterminate humanity”, it is “out right silly” to think that it will make “self-justifying speeches about how humans had their time, but now, as dinosaur, have became obsolete... Only Evil Hollywood AI's do that” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the- problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). We can draw both an idea and an analogy out of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky's slightly ironical reflection. The degree an computer virus intends to make a crash on your PC is comparable to that of a bomb intending to destroy a city. Yudkowsky also tries to highlight the fact that in the unlikely scenario of a robot revolution machines won't act and won't have the reasons a human could have. And so, the discrepancy between the two ways of acting should go to the point robots will be “utterly unconcerned with either wiping out or reforming the
prejudiced, obsolete human being around them.” as Adam Keiper states
(http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). That opens the path to the subject of creating not only intelligent but emotional systems too.
Try to think about the potential flows that can appear without raising an eyebrow. Now remember human errors an fallibilities, such as, for example auditing. Suddenly it doesn't feel so good playing God, does it? The key is not to expect anything from the device you created and thus you will never fear it being imperfect. Remember: a machine should be both replaceable and easy to clone. Backing up all the information they store being also one of the main features we'll have to take into consideration when creating AI. Coming back to emotional machines, one should accept the difficulty of putting a soul into a rigid piece of iron. What a human being is at a time derives from a huge chain of human kind evolution, from what us, as a specie had escalated along time. It is
a little bit too ambitious to think that only using tools technology nowadays provides, one can instill the morality humans inherited after all those history pages written and turned up, in something that is used to make the fork you are eating with. This could be seen as using a screw from every single year of the technological revolution to present. The analogy is coming from the fact that humans keep in their gene in a bigger or smaller degree something of all their ancestors. Sure this comparison has its weak points being made from two different coins of the matter. Seeing robots at the physical level of the screw and humans at the superior one of character. But I think it is clear by now we are neither taking people and robots as being at the same height, nor trying to prove some kind of equality between them.
In addition to all this, how much power of prediction and computation would a robot need to autonomously act in different situations? The truth is that dilemmas and hard choices are imminent in the life of any moral being. As Keiper and Schulman said, “moral reasoning will always be essential and unfinished” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence). This being said, it is obvious that no one can guarantee robot's acting correctly from the point of view of ethics, until all ethics issues are solved. The impossibility of doing that leads to a great opacity of robot psychology for us. They will be human beings without human moral failings – no fear, pride, greed, envy, etc. The goal here would be: we succeeded in perfecting bodies and brain, why not purifying souls throughout our machines too?
In conclusion, even if the speed at which Artificial Intelligence entered our lives was unexpectedly big and the impact on public opinion was taking scale over the years, we can't talk about a collision there. In its way to us, this new technology had no obstacles. Our desire for comfort and needs of our superior beings gave it a huge empty place to fulfill. So now we come tosee this place Artificial Intelligence grows its children in, step through its open door and we can't stop wandering if behind this new sun entering the eyes of our ignorance there is another enlightened door or a bottomless pit. And if we come to the conclusion that it keeps opening doors how much will this process last until we come to a dead end, and what this dead end would mean for human kind? Both a vague answer to these questions and the final idea we can draw from all this paper is best shown by the context the entrepreneur Dany Hills offers us by saying: “We are at the point analogous to when singled-celled organisms turned into multi-celled organisms. We are amoeba and we can't figure out what the hell is this thing that we are creating”.
Bibliography:
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/Bryson-Slaves-Book09.pdf
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/ai.html
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonKime-IJCAI11.pdf
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/whatisai.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
http://moralmachines.blogspot.ro/
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jag.2010.4.issue-4/jag.2010.020/jag.2010.020.xml
Comentarii
Trimiteți un comentariu