Many of us can rememÂber a time when artiÂfiÂcial intelÂliÂgence was wideÂly disÂmissed as a sciÂence-ficÂtionÂal pipe dream unworÂthy of seriÂous research and investÂment. That time, safe to say, has gone. “WithÂin a decade,” writes blogÂger Samuel HamÂmond, the develÂopÂment of artiÂfiÂcial intelÂliÂgence could bring about a world in which “ordiÂnary peoÂple will have more capaÂbilÂiÂties than a CIA agent does today. You’ll be able to lisÂten in on a conÂverÂsaÂtion in an apartÂment across the street using the sound vibraÂtions off a chip bag” (as preÂviÂousÂly feaÂtured here on Open CulÂture.) “You’ll be able to replace your face and voice with those of someÂone else in real time, allowÂing anyÂone to socialÂly engiÂneer their way into anyÂthing.”
And that’s the benign part. “Death-by-kamikaze drone will surÂpass mass shootÂings as the best way to enact a lurid revenge. The courts, meanÂwhile, will be floodÂed with lawÂsuits because who needs to pay attorÂney fees when your phone can file an airÂtight motion for you?” All this “will be enough to make the staÂblest genius feel schizÂoÂphrenic.” But “it doesn’t have to be this way. We can fight AI fire with AI fire and adapt our pracÂtices along the way.” You can hear a conÂsidÂered take on how we might manÂage that in the aniÂmatÂed TED-Ed video above, adaptÂed from an interÂview with comÂputÂer sciÂenÂtist StuÂart RusÂsell, author of the popÂuÂlar textÂbook ArtiÂfiÂcial IntelÂliÂgence: A ModÂern Approach as well as Human ComÂpatÂiÂble: ArtiÂfiÂcial IntelÂliÂgence and the ProbÂlem of ConÂtrol.
“The probÂlem with the way we build AI sysÂtems now is we give them a fixed objecÂtive,” RusÂsell says. “The algoÂrithms require us to specÂiÂfy everyÂthing in the objecÂtive.” Thus an AI charged with de-acidÂiÂfyÂing the oceans could quite plauÂsiÂbly come to the soluÂtion of setÂting off “a catÂalytÂic reacÂtion that does that extremeÂly effiÂcientÂly, but conÂsumes a quarÂter of the oxyÂgen in the atmosÂphere, which would apparÂentÂly cause us to die fairÂly slowÂly and unpleasÂantÂly over the course of sevÂerÂal hours.” The key to this probÂlem, RusÂsell argues, is to proÂgram in a cerÂtain lack of conÂfiÂdence: “It’s when you build machines that believe with cerÂtainÂty that they have the objecÂtive, that’s when you get sort of psyÂchoÂpathÂic behavÂior, and I think we see the same thing in humans.”
A less exisÂtenÂtial but more comÂmon worÂry has to do with unemÂployÂment. Full AI automaÂtion of the wareÂhouse tasks still perÂformed by humans, for examÂple, “would, at a stroke, elimÂiÂnate three or four milÂlion jobs.” RusÂsell here turns to E. M. Forster, who in the 1909 stoÂry “The Machine Stops” enviÂsions a future in which “everyÂone is entireÂly machine-depenÂdent,” with lives not unlike the e‑mail- and Zoom meetÂing-filled ones we lead today. The narÂraÂtive plays out as a warnÂing that “if you hand over the manÂageÂment of your civÂiÂlizaÂtion to machines, you then lose the incenÂtive to underÂstand it yourÂself or to teach the next genÂerÂaÂtion how to underÂstand it.” The mind, as the sayÂing goes, is a wonÂderÂful serÂvant but a terÂriÂble masÂter. The same is true of machines — and even truer, we may well find, of mechanÂiÂcal minds.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
Based in Seoul, ColÂin MarÂshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂter Books on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
Leave a Reply