From the Roomba that vacuums the carpet, to
the robots that build our cars with systems
that drive themselves, the extended use of
artificial intelligence, or AI, is set to
revolutionize the whole of life.
Yet in 2014, physicist Stephen Hawking told
the BBC, “The development of full artificial
intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Is this a baseless fear?
Or should we take some action before some
new development goes rogue?
With an eye on the human condition, this is Insight.
Every day artificial intelligence, or AI,
is changing our lives for the better.
Many applications not only save time and effort
but also lead to better outcomes.
Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees,
is cofounder of the Center for the Study of
Existential Risk.
AI is one of the many aspects of our world
that is being evaluated.
Martin Rees: “We’ve benefited hugely from
information technology.
The fact that someone in the middle of Africa
has access to the world’s information, and
we’re all in contact with each other, is
a wonderful thing.
And of course, if we look further ahead, we
wonder about whether AI will achieve anything
approaching human intelligence, and that raises
a whole new set of questions.
Machines and robots are taking over more and
more segments.
And of course, it’s not just factory work
they’re taking over; they’re taking over
many professional jobs: routine accountancy,
medical diagnostics and surgery,
and legal work will be taken over.”
Most of these areas pose no concern at the moment.
Yet there is the possibility of existential disaster.
Cambridge University professor Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
studies the pros and cons of AI.
Hulme: “According to one of your colleagues,
Nick Bostrom, ‘the transition to the machine
intelligence era looks like a momentous event
and one associated with significant existential risk.’
If it’s true, what is the risk, and is it
existential?”
Sean Ó hÉigeartaigh: “When Nick Bostrom
talks about the transition to machine intelligence
and existential risk, he’s not speaking
about the artificial intelligence systems
that we have in the world today, or tomorrow,
or even next year.
He’s looking forward to the advent of what
we might term ‘artificial general intelligence,’
the kind of general reasoning, problem-solving
intelligence that allows us to dominate our
environment in the way that the human species has.
We’re currently nowhere near that,
and experts are divided
on how long it will take us to achieve that.
However, were we to achieve this, it would
undoubtedly change the world in more ways
than we can imagine.
If we were to create intelligence that was
equivalent or perhaps even greater, then it
would undoubtedly change the world even more,
and it would be imprudent of us to assume
that that would go very well for us.”
Along with 25 other experts, Ó hÉigeartaigh
published a report in February 2018,
“The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence:
Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation.”
Hulme: “You say this: ‘Artificial intelligence
is a game changer.’
So what’s been the reaction from governments,
corporations, individuals?”
Ó hÉigeartaigh: “The reaction has actually
been very positive.
We were very pleased.
We had an initial concern that we would put
out this report and people would be concerned
that maybe it’s scaremongering or unnecessary
concern.
That was very much not our intention with
the report.
One of the main recommendations that we were
trying to bring across in the report is that
with artificial intelligence developing quite
quickly, and in particular artificial intelligence
being applied to so many different safety-critical
systems in our world, this means that we need
to start working together more closely between
machine-learning experts, who really understand
the state-of-the-art of the technology; policymakers
and lawyers, who need to legislate around
it and who need to guide governmental strategy
around it; and the civil infrastructure people
and social scientists, who need to think about
the impact of it.”
One of the concerns is that if machines are
allowed to learn and achieve artificial general
intelligence, one or more of them could go
rogue.
The stuff of science fiction, you may say.
But we all know that when something becomes
possible, though still ethically undesirable,
we can’t prevent its eventual use by someone.
Commenting on this possibility, author William
Poundstone writes, “There is going to be
interest in creating machines with will, whose
interests are not our own.
. . . I think the notion of Frankensteinian
AI, which turns on its creators, is something
worth taking seriously.”
Is there a time to unitedly say no to some
kinds of development?
This is the first of two questions that come
to mind from a biblical perspective.
They’re not “religious” in the sense
that causes people to recoil from anything
tied to belief, but reality-based, because
they speak to our physical existence and survival.
This first question relates to a time when
human beings had achieved much technologically
through common purpose and common language.
In early urbanized Babylonian society, an
account of the building of a high tower, which
would symbolically challenge God’s domain,
ends with the forestalling of further development
because “this is what they begin to do;
now nothing that they propose to do will be
withheld from them” (Genesis 11:6).
Those early builders could have no limits
without some form of outside control.
They could have taken a different path and
chosen not to “play God.”
But as a result of their overreaching, some
form of outside control had to be asserted;
so the people were scattered, their language
confused.
How to determine right from wrong in human
endeavor is the second question
that comes to mind.
Is there a universal standard by which we
can know right from wrong action?
Today we can readily admit that the problem
with technologies that can be used for good
and bad (so-called dual-use) arises from the
selfish side of human nature.
Such a global code lies within the law of
love, defined in the Bible as love toward
God as Creator and toward fellow human beings
as neighbors.
Artificial intelligence can certainly augment
human intelligence, but only the mind of God
at work in humanity can provide us with spiritual
intelligence so that we live ethically and
at peace with all.
If you'd like to learn more, search "x-risks"
at vision.org.
For Insight, I'm David Hulme.
