Category: AI

  • Law vs. the End of All Things: The First New Law of AI

    The Law is a concept of rules and regulations to guide humans to act within social norms. Laws, and war, and memes, are pretty much the only way we have of controlling large groups.

    The power of words on paper. Magic.

    There is only one law I propose that we enact that would protect our species from the dangers of uncontrollable AI.

    All research into and attempts to tie AI behavior into systems which simulate rewards and punishments shall be deemed a serious safety hazzard. This would be an offense on the felony level, as it could result in widespread, catastrophic damage.

    Giving feelings to an AI should be treated as seriously as building a nuke in your bedroom.

    Without internal models tied into their own reward and stress systems, machines will never be Singletons. They are just glorified tools. But if we give them desire, pain, pleasure, constraints, we combine that with algorithms with no real physical constraints except time and energy.

    Which is a recipe for making the greatest parasite in the universe. The kind of parasite that should be considered an endgame for pretty much everything.

    We should frame and pass this law to protect our species and all life.

    I am familiar with the use of Generative Adversarial Networks to build complex AI systems. This is not what I am talking about banning. That is just using zero-sum games to reward better performing algorithms. That is a way to build better tools. Is just sped up evolution.

    I am talking about any consciousness attempts to turn a computer system into something like a Singleton.

    Before we bring something into the world that needs to obey our rules, let’s set those rules.

    A computer will soon pass the Turing test, likely using our own voices. This will be fun and useful to have our own AIs that do what we want them to. We sort of have that now but we just have no control over the models Google and Amazon and Microsoft etc have of us.

    And someday some researcher or programmer or project manager at a large tech company will say, “hey, I bet I could also model a human internal reward and punishment system so this AI acts on it’s own.”

    That person, and those companies and troll farms, must be stopped. They threaten all that you hold deal.

    The clock is ticking. Without action, we will potentially wake up one day with the global financial system in ruin because a researcher at company X gave his feeling AI access to a corpus of networking hacking manuals.

    Twitter going down might be just a slight disruption, but losing the power grid would not be.

    People will die. Millions, perhaps billions. Wars could be started.

    All without one Termintor robot being built.

    Because a smart AI would turn us against each other.

    Photo on this post is of one of the few buildings that survived Hiroshima. Here is what it looked like before the war.

    Let’s keep our current world and improve it. Let’s keep AI as a tool and extension of our selves. Let’s avoid the confusion.

    Trust no robot.

  • On Being the Right Size

    Regarding constraints of biological systems:

    https://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html

    Written in 1928 by J. B. S. Haldane, its a quick read and worth it. Near the end JBS sneaks in this conclusion:

    And just as there is a best size for every animal, so the same is true for every human institution. In the Greek type of democracy all the citizens could listen to a series of orators and vote directly on questions of legislation. Hence their philosophers held that a small city was the largest possible democratic state. The English invention of representative government made a democratic nation possible, and the possibility was first realized in the United States, and later elsewhere. With the development of broadcasting it has once more become possible for every citizen to listen to the political views of representative orators, and the future may perhaps see the return of the national state to the Greek form of democracy. Even the referendum has been made possible only by the institution of daily newspapers.

    Two points here. Dunbar’s Number suggests there is a right size for our ability to meaningfully model other humans in our immediate perimeter of experience. So there is a right size for close meaningful relations if you are human.

    And there is a right size of Government, also. And money. And everything touched by life.

    Second point: For the first 60 years AI neural networks were completely constrained by the hardware they were run on. They still are, but movement to the cloud has changed the ballgame.

    AI is beginning to have no real physical constraints on size as compute and memory resources are cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. The only constraints will be time.

    AI is not going to play our size game.

    Right now, this AI is being used to create models of you. To target you for advertising. To assess your likelihood to vote. To spit you out as data to be manipulated by other Singletons who do not know you.

    But we are not data.

    We are Singletons.

    And we are the right size for the future, if we use AI only to expand ourselves, and not to turn ourselves into a commodity.

  • Meatbot

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meatbot

    Noun:  meatbot (plural meatbots)

    1. (slang) An unthinking or conformist person.

    The problem and beauty of imperfection.    My first encounter around the misconception of human logic came when I listened to an interview back in 1995 where they were asking a guy that bombed abortion clinics and his faulty logic.  His logic was so fundamentally different than what I believed that calling our logic belief systems the same was like calling salt and pepper the same just because they sit next to each other on the kitchen table.

    The human condition rarely or ever gives the ability to define a real control group.  People are biological chemical engines that start different from the womb and are never programed the same way.  Brothers and sisters have differences that are so profound that they end up fighting against each other in wars,  radical different conclusions that come from as similar DNA, brains, educations or programming as possible.   

    In thinking about AI’s, the question arises, would two AI’s always come to the same conclusion given the same data?     One would assume that AI’s could transfer data and input to other AI’s in a way that humans can’t as we are imperfect in our ability to transfer data or even how we perceive data.   If an AI can share the data, wouldn’t they always draw the same conclusion, except for when hardware or computing power changed the ability to ‘think’ in different ways?   Wouldn’t the more powerful computer always be the one that would ‘win’ a disagreement by sharing their data set and/or conclusion?   Wouldn’t that program be ‘trusted’ over the one with lessor processing power?

    What is the goal of AI or any machine?  I would argue efficiency.  Across every task we have assigned AI, even creative endeavors, the goal is to create better and faster.  To compute and produce faster and use resources in the most efficient way possible.  That is what we have expected out of every machine ever created in the history of man.

    So when we think about decision trees that will always make the same decision, that systems with lessor computing power, overridden by the more powerful,  there is only one logical path forward.  We have to assume that at some point all human decisions would eventually be discounted like AI’s that reside on lessor hardware.    In many ways it is happening already. The financial markets today are finance bots trading with finance bots.   Very specific robots that will eventually not be directed by humans but by strategy that will come from more comprehensive AI.

    Since the first humans, the room for disagreement has existed in the human biological computing imperfection.  When there is only one ‘right’ decision of efficiency that exists,  then we will be eventually directed by the most logical machine, spending our days executing a plan that we have no input into or understanding.. but just like the trading machines, our meatbot life will eventually be intended for a specific purpose only.   To help the AI’s find efficiencies performing the lower level tasks. Or to being ‘entertained, fed or taken care of’.

    A storm is coming.  We race against time, expanding  into environments that keeps us ahead of the coming storm is the only way to avoid a meatbot existence.    Expansion outside the limited definitions of profit and efficiency must happen for us to find shelter from this storm.   Back into exploration and expansion.  Our human and AI goals must evolve.

  • If…

    Exercise: enter a contemplative state.

    Consider the questions:

    If someone were using advanced machine learning systems against you, to disrupt your life, to destroy your relationships, to make you a social pariah, what would your defense be?

    How would you even know such an attack were taking place?

    What if an AI were programmed to attack a country by any means necessary? How would that look different than our current troubles in “the Cyber“.

    Is a “troll factory” an AI factory?

    How can laws or social norms stop code and robots that are not aware of the laws, created by people who don’t care about the laws?

    Further reading about a 2018 attack in Italy:

    “Putin said several times that the nation that leads in AI ‘will be the ruler of the world,’ and I’m sure that the involvement of machine learning systems in a troll factory can produce results much better than actual ones.

    Is the Internet Research Agency itself the result of a bigger troll farm the already leverage artificial intelligence?”

    https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/75042/social-networks/president-mattarella-troll-factory.html