Ethics & destiny of AI creations

[shunyadragon]

The idea of "mechanical brains" was prevalent in the days of machines; then with the development of telephony, the brain became the enchanted wiring loom; after that the brain became the wetware electronic computer, either hard-wired or running software, or both; some now wish to develop the idea of the brain as being a wetware quantum computer: the cynic would say that whatever idea of the brain is current at a given point in time mirrors the latest fashionable technological advance, but will appear laughable in retrospect.

This is a unnecessarily cynical approach of how the advance of technology is reflected in the advances in Artificial Intelligence. Yes, the efforts in AI technology are reflected in the technology of the time, but it is not 'laughable' nor a matter of being 'fashionable.' I am not sure what 'wetware' is your referring to. It may be helpful if you provide a reference that describes this. I do not believe it is where the current direction of AI technology is going. The current direction is replicating the neuron and neuron networks in various ways replicating the way natural neurons and neuron networks function.

[David Hayward]

This is a unnecessarily cynical approach of how the advance of technology is reflected in the advances in Artificial Intelligence. Yes, the efforts in AI technology are reflected in the technology of the time, but it is not 'laughable' nor a matter of being 'fashionable.' I am not sure what 'wetware' is your referring to. It may be helpful if you provide a reference that describes this. I do not believe it is where the current direction of AI technology is going. The current direction is replicating the neuron and neuron networks in various ways replicating the way natural neurons and neuron networks function.

I have seen the word, 'wetware' so often I forget others might not have seen it: our desk computers use hardware, ie the electronic circuits and other obviously physical parts, together with software, ie the programs which run on them; wetware is a look-alike name for whatever might be categorised as functioning like hardware and software in the (soggy) brain.

I'll clarify 'fashionable', which perhaps conveys the wrong overtones, but try to stay away from talking of 'paradigm shifts' while doing so: in the days of machines people trying to understand the brain could only use the idea of a calculating machine -- the closest analogy or metaphor at the time; in the days of telephony, and with the awareness that the brain, too, has enormous amounts of 'intricate wiring', the best metaphor available was the 'enchanted loom', likening the brain to a telephony network and switchboards; now that we have electronic computers, the best metaphor available is the electronic computer in one form or another.

I note with dry and wry humour that the various metaphors used for how the brain works have come and gone, one supplanting another; the obvious dry and wry observation to follow that, is that (for all I know) this might happen again, or perhaps even that it is likely to happen again bearing in mind that it has already happened several times so far. I mean no scorn or disparagement by this; one day follows another, and each metaphor has its day.

Nor is there anything wrong with using metaphors, least of all whatever happens to be currently the best metaphor; indeed, we are condemned -- by our relative ignorance of how the brain works -- to using metaphors: like you, I hope current directions of research into AI technology develop fruitfully.

[Carrikature]

Oh you can turn off and on individual neurons to "see what happens" in a brain? If that were even possible, that doesn't really help when you have over 86 billion neurons just in the typical cerebral cortex of a human brain. One individual neuron doesn't tell you much. We lose brain cells all the time.

We can turn off groups of them in living creatures. It's been done. We can also cause them to fire in the presence of certain stimuli. It's just a matter of manipulating genetic sequences (among other things). Check out Optogenetics for more. We can even do this to determine effects on behavior.

I don't know if we can ever create a sentient artificial intelligence, but I can pretty much guarantee you that we are nowhere close enough to even understanding how a brain works at this point to even come close at our level of technology. Perhaps someone will have a breakthrough and it will become easy, but barring such, I would think it would be 50 to 100 years before we could come close to creating such an intelligence. If ever. We just don't know yet.

To claim otherwise is just guessing. It is like back at the turn of the last century when they thought they could make "mechanical brains" out of gears and such because they had mechanical calculating machines. In fact it is impossible to build a mechanical intelligence as we know now. It took vacuum tubes and eventually microprocessors to even create basic software programs and expert systems and we are still nowhere close to creating sentience.

I don't know if we will ever be able to understand it or not, but we're just now starting the equivalent of the Human Genome Project with brains. Check out Brainbow, Human Brain Project, and BRAIN Initiative for starters.

“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.”

[shunyadragon]

I have seen the word, 'wetware' so often I forget others might not have seen it: our desk computers use hardware, ie the electronic circuits and other obviously physical parts, together with software, ie the programs which run on them; wetware is a look-alike name for whatever might be categorised as functioning like hardware and software in the (soggy) brain.

I'll clarify 'fashionable', which perhaps conveys the wrong overtones, but try to stay away from talking of 'paradigm shifts' while doing so: in the days of machines people trying to understand the brain could only use the idea of a calculating machine -- the closest analogy or metaphor at the time; in the days of telephony, and with the awareness that the brain, too, has enormous amounts of 'intricate wiring', the best metaphor available was the 'enchanted loom', likening the brain to a telephony network and switchboards; now that we have electronic computers, the best metaphor available is the electronic computer in one form or another.

I note with dry and wry humour that the various metaphors used for how the brain works have come and gone, one supplanting another; the obvious dry and wry observation to follow that, is that (for all I know) this might happen again, or perhaps even that it is likely to happen again bearing in mind that it has already happened several times so far. I mean no scorn or disparagement by this; one day follows another, and each metaphor has its day.

Nor is there anything wrong with using metaphors, least of all whatever happens to be currently the best metaphor; indeed, we are condemned -- by our relative ignorance of how the brain works -- to using metaphors: like you, I hope current directions of research into AI technology develop fruitfully.

Probably the reason I have not heard it before, because over the years I have subscribed to publications like Scientific American, which does not often use layman literature metaphors, and then use their bibliographies to read the more academic references. In the past I haunted university libraries and occasionally took a course, but now it is mostly the internet. I have sufficient academic background in Organic Chemistry, Anatomy, Physiology, Math and Genetics to understand the articles. My main academic background is Geology, Geomorphology and Evolution. My academic publications are in Geomorphology, Soil Survey and Soil Mechanics.

After doing a web search I find the term 'wetware' most commonly referring specifically to the human brain (1987 novel "Vacuum Flowers" by Michael Swanwick, Timothy Leary, in an appendix to Info-Psychology, and a 1957 article by George A. Miller, The magical number 7 plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity for processing information), where the contemporary research in AI is more toward simulating equivalent neurons and neuron networks and their function in different mediums.

I tend to avoid these 'metaphors,' because they are misleading.

[MaxVel]

We're really lucky to have such an expert mind as yours to inform us. Wikipedia is so helpful when one is stumped....

Shunya, can't you just share what you know, your thoughts and ideas, without always trying to make yourself out as more of an expert on the subject than anyone else here?

You often have interesting things to say... ...but I tend to feel Sparko's view of you has a lot of truth to it.


I'm wondering how an artificial mind - presumably one that is completely material in components - would be capable of exhibiting the intentionality that seems to charatcerise thought.

[shunyadragon]

We're really lucky to have such an expert mind as yours to inform us. Wikipedia is so helpful when one is stumped....

Shunya, can't you just share what you know, your thoughts and ideas, without always trying to make yourself out as more of an expert on the subject than anyone else here?

I do not care for the title 'expert,' an exspurt claim is more like a drip that failed. For the most part I site reliable source on the current science and technology of AI to support my view, and not my expert knowledge. I do have the basic academic knowledge to understand the literature.

You often have interesting things to say... ...but I tend to feel Sparko's view of you has a lot of truth to it.

I object to Sparko's view, because he was unnecessarily cynical and hypothetical about a negative view of the possibility of AI, and I prefer to dialogue based on actual scientific and technology literature and references.

I'm wondering how an artificial mind - presumably one that is completely material in components - would be capable of exhibiting the intentionality that seems to charatcerise thought.

IF this is achieved, and I believe it is possible. It will be done so by, developing an equivalent AI brain to human brain (organic/inorganic?), either with artificial neurons and neuron networks, or possibly through new advances in 'Quantum Computing.' The present Computer technology is extremely inadequate to come even close to developing an AI brain.

[Sparko]

I do not care for the title 'expert,' an exspurt claim is more like a drip that failed. For the most part I site reliable source on the current science and technology of AI to support my view, and not my expert knowledge. I do have the basic academic knowledge to understand the literature.



I object to Sparko's view, because he was unnecessarily cynical and hypothetical about a negative view of the possibility of AI, and I prefer to dialogue based on actual scientific and technology literature and references.




IF this is achieved, and I believe it is possible. It will be done so by, developing an equivalent AI brain to human brain (organic/inorganic?), either with artificial neurons and neuron networks, or possibly through new advances in 'Quantum Computing.' The present Computer technology is extremely inadequate to come even close to developing an AI brain.

Well Shuny as I am an expert in electronics and computer science (it is what I went to college for) I think I do know a bit more than you do about the actual limitations in replicating a sentient mind in software and current hardware.

Everything you have said, like your ideas about "quantum computing" are based on non-existent technologies. If we ever DO create a workable quantum computer, that doesn't mean that it would be possible to create a sentient artificial mind. It might, or it might not.

You are doing exactly what you accuse many theists of doing: You want a conclusion to be your way, to confirm your belief so you use a "god of the gaps" to get there. You imagine some technology will occur soon that will allow sentient AI, but the problem is, nothing we have now can do it, and since the technologies you keep appealing to don't even exist, or are in such a prototypical stage (like printing neurons), there is no way we can know if those technologies can deliver what you want to believe they can.

One day we might have a true sentient AI, but then one day may never come. We just don't have the technology now, nor know what technology it will take to do such a thing, and we don't even have the knowledge of how our own minds actually work to create such a mind artificially at the present time or in the near future.

[Carrikature]

For what it's worth, I hope we realize the folly in creating a sentient AI long before we ever realize the potential to do so.

[shunyadragon]

Well Shuny as I am an expert in electronics and computer science (it is what I went to college for) I think I do know a bit more than you do about the actual limitations in replicating a sentient mind in software and current hardware.

The future of AI will not be in this technology of computer science. My knowledge is not as important as my ability to read and cite sources to support my view. At present I have not seen you cite anything.

Everything you have said, like your ideas about "quantum computing" are based on non-existent technologies. If we ever DO create a workable quantum computer, that doesn't mean that it would be possible to create a sentient artificial mind. It might, or it might not.

Read my post correctly, I did not say that 'Quantum Computing was the answer, I considered it a future possibility, but nonetheless it is not based on non-existent science and technologies. D-Wave systems is currently developing simple beginning technologies. Not there yet, but your unwarranted cynical approach is showing, without references.

If you’ve seen the video below, you know what it takes to run a quantum computer. The only version commercially available today, made by D-Wave Systems, takes a 10-square-foot appliance to keep a 1-square-centimeter chip at a temperature of near absolute zero. It’s not for the meek, or the budget-conscious, which is why the only known purchasers to date are organizations like Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin.

But don’t worry, D-Wave CEO Vern Brownell promises, the rest of the us will probably consume our qubits as a service. That’s right: D-Wave wants to deliver quantum computing via API.

You are doing exactly what you accuse many theists of doing: You want a conclusion to be your way, to confirm your belief so you use a "god of the gaps" to get there. You imagine some technology will occur soon that will allow sentient AI, but the problem is, nothing we have now can do it, and since the technologies you keep appealing to don't even exist, or are in such a prototypical stage (like printing neurons), there is no way we can know if those technologies can deliver what you want to believe they can.

'Thou doth protest to much, methinks.' You grossly misrepresent my posts on this subject. I have never said anything remotely on these lines, 'You want a conclusion to be your way, to confirm your belief so you use a "god of the gaps" to get there.' This is ridiculous.

IF this is achieved, and I believe it is possible. It will be done so by, developing an equivalent AI brain to human brain (organic/inorganic?), either with artificial neurons and neuron networks, or possibly through new advances in 'Quantum Computing.' The present Computer technology is extremely inadequate to come even close to developing an AI brain.

This is actually what said and it bears no resemblance to the hyperbole accusations you made above.

One day we might have a true sentient AI, but then one day may never come. We just don't have the technology now, nor know what technology it will take to do such a thing, and we don't even have the knowledge of how our own minds actually work to create such a mind artificially at the present time or in the near future.

Again unwarranted cynical view of our present and near future possibilities of science and technology.

[Sparko]

For what it's worth, I hope we realize the folly in creating a sentient AI long before we ever realize the potential to do so.

That's a whole other bag of worms. Which is why I asked the question earlier about would an AI actually be what we term a psychopath? It would not necessarily have human empathy or even human like intelligence. It might end up not caring about humans if it could survive without them, or even being hostile towards humans if it felt we were illogical or irrational compared to the way it thought. Do we really want to let something with that potential control our entire technological society? Because such an AI probably would not be limited to a physical location but would have access to our entire networks.

[shunyadragon]

For what it's worth, I hope we realize the folly in creating a sentient AI long before we ever realize the potential to do so.

This does represent possible moral and ethical issues that science must consider in the process of developing AI.

[shunyadragon]

That's a whole other bag of worms. Which is why I asked the question earlier about would an AI actually be what we term a psychopath? It would not necessarily have human empathy or even human like intelligence. It might end up not caring about humans if it could survive without them, or even being hostile towards humans if it felt we were illogical or irrational compared to the way it thought. Do we really want to let something with that potential control our entire technological society? Because such an AI probably would not be limited to a physical location but would have access to our entire networks.

This the cynical fear motivated 'opinion' response I object to, without references to justify this. Not necessarily 'a whole other bag f worms.' It is part of this thread 'ethics,' but does not determine the potential of science and technology can or not develop AI. Actually based on present progress, I believe it is a done deal. The problem is only how soon it wil happen and how will we deal with the ethics and morality such a development.

[MaxVel]

I do not care for the title 'expert,' an exspurt claim is more like a drip that failed. For the most part I site reliable source on the current science and technology of AI to support my view, and not my expert knowledge. I do have the basic academic knowledge to understand the literature.



I object to Sparko's view, because he was unnecessarily cynical and hypothetical about a negative view of the possibility of AI, and I prefer to dialogue based on actual scientific and technology literature and references.




IF this is achieved, and I believe it is possible. It will be done so by, developing an equivalent AI brain to human brain (organic/inorganic?), either with artificial neurons and neuron networks, or possibly through new advances in 'Quantum Computing.' The present Computer technology is extremely inadequate to come even close to developing an AI brain.

I think that even if we are one day able to build a 'brain' - a close replication of the human brain's networks, that is not the same thing as building a mind.

[Carrikature]

This does represent possible moral and ethical issues that science must consider in the process of developing AI.

It could, I suppose. For myself, I just find it foolish to create something that would (probably) eliminate us.

[Juvenal]

Well Shuny as I am an expert in electronics and computer science (it is what I went to college for) I think I do know a bit more than you do about the actual limitations in replicating a sentient mind in software and current hardware.

Oh, Spark0!

Here's a short list of what your erstwhile professors are saying about those actual limitations ...

Artificial Intelligence
Fuzzy Sets and Systems
Neural Networks
International Journal of Robotics Research
IEEE Computational Intelligence Society

Everything you have said, like your ideas about "quantum computing" are based on non-existent technologies. If we ever DO create a workable quantum computer, that doesn't mean that it would be possible to create a sentient artificial mind. It might, or it might not.

Didja just say something about workable quantum computers?

One day we might have a true sentient AI, but then one day may never come. We just don't have the technology now, nor know what technology it will take to do such a thing, and we don't even have the knowledge of how our own minds actually work to create such a mind artificially at the present time or in the near future.

The Facts That Got Away

JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: ''That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.''

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

As ever, Jesse