This is a recording of my discussion with John Counsell on “Late Night Counsell” AM580/CFRA Ottawa. The discussion was based on my new book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014). You can listen to the interview and call-ins by clicking to listen to the June 26, 2014 show at this URL:http://tunein.com/radio/Late-Night-Counsell-p50752. The page archives the recent “Late Night Counsell” shows. To listen to my interview click on the June 26, 2014 show.
Part 1 of this post ended with an important question: “How can we determine whether an intelligent machine has become conscious (self-aware)?” We will address this question in this post, along with some ethical dilemmas.
We do not have a way yet to determine whether even another human is self-aware. I only know that I am self-aware. I assume that since we share the same physiology, including similar human brains, you are probably self-aware as well. However, even if we discuss various topics, and I conclude that your intelligence is equal to mine, I still cannot prove you are self-aware. Only you know whether you are self-aware.
The problem becomes even more difficult when dealing with an intelligent machine. The gold standard for an intelligent machine’s being equal to the human mind is the Turing test, which I discuss in chapter 5 of my book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution. (If you are not familiar with the Turing test, a simple Google search will provide numerous sources to learn about it.) As of today no intelligent machine can pass the Turing test unless its interactions are restricted to a specific topic, such as chess. However, even if an intelligent machine does pass the Turing test and exhibits strong AI, how can we be sure it is self-aware? Intelligence may be a necessary condition for self-awareness, but it may not be sufficient. The machine may be able to emulate consciousness to the point that we conclude it must be self-aware, but that does not equal proof.
Even though other tests, such as the ConsScale test, have been proposed to determine machine consciousness, we still come up short. The ConsScale test evaluates the presence of features inspired by biological systems, such as social behavior. It also measures the cognitive development of an intelligent machine. This is based on the assumption that intelligence and consciousness are strongly related. The community of AI researchers, however, does not universally accept the ConsScale test as proof of consciousness. In the final analysis, I believe most AI researchers agree on only two points:
The above two points, however, do not rule out the possibility of intelligent machines becoming conscious and self-aware. They merely make the point that it will be extremely difficult to prove consciousness and self-awareness.
Ray Kurzweil predicts that by 2029 reverse engineering of the human brain will be completed, and nonbiological intelligence will combine the subtlety and pattern-recognition strength of human intelligence with the speed, memory, and knowledge sharing of machine intelligence (The Age of Spiritual Machines, 1999). I interpret this to mean that all aspects of the human brain will be replicated in an intelligent machine, including artificial consciousness. At this point intelligent machines either will become self-aware or emulate self-awareness to the point that they are indistinguishable from their human counterparts.
Self-aware intelligent machines being equivalent to human minds presents humankind with two serious ethical dilemmas.
Since a self-aware intelligent machine that is equivalent to a human mind is still a theoretical subject, the ethics addressing the above two questions have not been discussed or developed to any great extent. Kurzweil, however, predicts that self-aware intelligent machines on par with or exceeding the human mind eventually will obtain legal rights by the end of the twenty-first century. Perhaps, he is correct, but I think we need to be extremely careful regarding what legal rights self-aware intelligent machines are granted. If they are given rights on par with humans, we may have situation where the machines become the dominant species on this planet and pose a potential threat to humankind. More about this in upcoming posts.
Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte
My interview on Johnny Tan’s program (From My Mama’s Kitchen®) is featured as one of “Today’s Best” on Blog Talk Radio’s home page. This is a great honor. Below is the player from our interview. It displays a slide show of my picture as well as the book cover while it plays the interview.
You can listen and/or download my interview with Johnny Tan of FMMK talk radio discussing my new book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution. We discuss and explore the potential benefits and threats strong artificially intelligent machines pose to humankind.
Click here to listen or download the interview “The Artificial Intelligence Revolution”
This post is taken from the introduction of my new book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution. Enjoy!
This book is a warning. Through this medium I am shouting, “The singularity is coming.” The singularity (as first described by John von Neumann in 1955) represents a point in time when intelligent machines will greatly exceed human intelligence. It is, by way of analogy, the start of World War III. The singularity has the potential to set off an intelligence explosion that can wield devastation far greater than nuclear weapons. The message of this book is simple but critically important. If we do not control the singularity, it is likely to control us. Our best artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and futurists are unable to accurately predict what a postsingularity world may look like. However, almost all AI researchers and futurists agree it will represent a unique point in human evolution. It may be the best step in the evolution of humankind or the last step. As a physicist and futurist, I believe humankind will be better served if we control the singularity, which is why I wrote this book.
Unfortunately the rise of artificial intelligence has been almost imperceptible. Have you noticed the word “smart” being used to describe machines? Often “smart” means “artificial intelligence.” However, few products are being marketed with the phrase “artificial intelligence.” Instead they are simply called “smart.” For example you may have a “smart” phone. It does not just make and answer phone calls. It will keep a calendar of your scheduled appointments, remind you to go to them, and give you turn-by-turn driving directions to get there. If you arrive early, the phone will help you pass the time while you wait. It will play games with you, such as chess, and depending on the level of difficulty you choose, you may win or lose the game. In 2011 Apple introduced a voice-activated personal assistant, Siri, on its latest iPhone and iPad products. You can ask Siri questions, give it commands, and even receive responses. Smartphones appear to increase our productivity as well as enhance our leisure. Right now they are serving us, but all that may change.
The smartphone is an intelligent machine, and AI is at its core. AI is the new scientific frontier, and it is slowly creeping into our lives. We are surrounded by machines with varying degrees of AI, including toasters, coffeemakers, microwave ovens, and late-model automobiles. If you call a major pharmacy to renew a prescription, you likely will never talk with a person. The entire process will occur with the aid of a computer with AI and voice synthesis.
The word “smart” also has found its way into military phrases, such as “smart bombs,” which are satellite-guided weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). The US military always has had a close symbiotic relationship with computer research and its military applications. In fact the US Air Force, starting in the 1960s, has heavily funded AI research. Today the air force is collaborating with private industry to develop AI systems to improve information management and decision making for its pilots. In late 2012 the science website www.phys.org reported a breakthrough by AI researchers at CarnegieMellonUniversity. Carnegie Mellon researchers, funded by the US Army Research Laboratory, developed an AI surveillance program that can predict what a person “likely” will do in the future by using real-time video surveillance feeds. This is the premise behind the CBS television program Person of Interest.
AI has changed the cultural landscape. Yet the change has been so gradual that we hardly have noticed the major impact it has. Some experts, such as Ray Kurzweil, an American author, inventor, futurist, and the director of engineering at Google, predict that in about fifteen years, the average desktop computer will have a mind of its own, literally. This computer will be your intellectual equal and will even have a unique personality. It will be self-aware. Instead of just asking simple questions about the weather forecast, you may be confiding your deepest concerns to your computer and asking it for advice. It will have migrated from personal assistant to personal friend. You likely will give it a name, much in the same way we name our pets. You will be able to program its personality to have interests similar to your own. It will have face-recognition software, and it will recognize you and call you by name, similar to the computer HAL 9000 in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. The conversations between you and your “personal friend” will appear completely normal. Someone in the next room who is not familiar with your voice will not be able to tell which voice belongs to the computer and which voice belongs to you.
By approximately the mid-twenty-first century, Kurzweil predicts, the intelligence of computers will exceed that of humans, and a $1,000 computer will match the processing power of all human brains on Earth. Although, historically, predictions regarding advances in AI have tended to be overly optimistic, all indications are that Kurzweil is on target.
Many philosophical and legal questions will emerge regarding computers with artificial intelligence equal to or greater than that of the human mind (i.e., strong AI). Here are just a few questions we will ask ourselves after strong AI emerges:
It is likely that during the latter half of the twenty-first century, SAMs will design new and even more powerful SAMs, with AI capabilities far beyond our ability to comprehend. They will be capable of performing a wide range of tasks, which will displace many jobs at all levels in the work force, from bank tellers to neurosurgeons. New medical devices using AI will help the blind to see and the paralyzed to walk. Amputees will have new prosthetic limbs, with AI plugged directly into their nervous systems and controlled by their minds. The new prosthetic limb not only will replicate the lost limb but also be stronger, more agile, and superior in ways we cannot yet imagine. We will implant computer devices into our brains, expanding human intelligence with AI. Humankind and intelligent machines will begin to merge into a new species: cyborgs. It will happen gradually, and humanity will believe AI is serving us.
Computers with strong AI in the late twenty-first century, however, may see things differently. We may appear to those machines much the same way bees in a beehive appear to us today. We know we need bees to pollinate crops, but we still consider bees insects. We use them in agriculture, and we gather their honey. Although bees are essential to our survival, we do not offer to share our technology with them. If wild bees form a beehive close to our home, we may become concerned and call an exterminator.
Will the SAMs in the latter part of the twenty-first century become concerned about humankind? Our history proves we have not been a peaceful species. We have weapons capable of destroying all of civilization. We squander and waste resources. We pollute the air, rivers, lakes, and oceans. We often apply technology (such as nuclear weapons and computer viruses) without fully understanding the long-term consequences. Will SAMs in the late twenty-first century determine it is time to exterminate humankind or persuade humans to become cyborgs (i.e., humans with brains enhanced by implanted artificial intelligence and potentially having organ and limb replacements from artificially intelligent machines)? Will humans embrace the prospect of becoming cyborgs? Becoming a cyborg offers the opportunity to attain superhuman intelligence and abilities. Disease and wars may be just events stored in our memory banks and no longer pose a threat to cyborgs. As cyborgs we may achieve immortality.
According to David Hoskins’s 2009 article, “The Impact of Technology on Health Delivery and Access” (www.workers.org/2009/us/sickness_1231):
An examination of Centers for Disease Control statistics reveals a steady increase in life expectancy for the U.S. population since the start of the 20th century. In 1900, the average life expectancy at birth was a mere 47 years. By 1950, this had dramatically increased to just over 68 years. As of 2005, life expectancy had increased to almost 78 years.
Hoskins attributes increased life expectancy to advances in medical science and technology over the last century. With the advent of strong AI, life expectancy likely will increase to the point that cyborgs approach immortality. Is this the predestined evolutionary path of humans?
This may sound like a B science-fiction movie, but it is not. The reality of AI becoming equal to that of a human mind is almost at hand. By the latter part of the twenty-first century, the intelligence of SAMs likely will exceed that of humans. The evidence that they may become malevolent exists now, which I discuss later in the book. Attempting to control a computer with strong AI that exceeds current human intelligence by many folds may be a fool’s errand.
Imagine you are a grand master chess player teaching a ten-year-old to play chess. What chance does the ten-year-old have to win the game? We may find ourselves in that scenario at the end of this century. A computer with strong AI will find a way to survive. Perhaps it will convince humans it is in their best interest to become cyborgs. Its logic and persuasive powers may be not only compelling but also irresistible.
Artificial intelligence is an embryonic reality today, but it is improving exponentially. By the end of the twenty-first century, we will have only one question regarding artificial intelligence: Will it serve us or replace us?
Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte
Did you know? World consumption of paper has grown 400 percent in the last 40 years, now using 300 million tons of paper each year. Now nearly 4 billion trees or 35 percent of the total trees cut around the world are used in paper industries on every continent. For example:
Unfortunately, the papermaking process is not a clean one. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pulp and paper mills are among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country. Each year millions of pounds of highly toxic chemicals such as toluene, methanol, chlorine dioxide, hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde are released into the air and water from papermaking plants around the world. In addition, while tree farms or plantations help feed the demand for wood, they can’t provide the plant and animal diversity found in natural forests.
Solutions: 1) Recycle – now accounts for about 38 percent of the paper made. 2) Many environmentalists who believe that the world’s forests are being cut down faster than they can grow are pointing to the continued success of wood-free paper made with other plants such as hemp and a similarly fibrous plant called kenaf. 3) Use agricultural waste as a stand in for wood. Agri-pulp, as it’s called, is wheat, oat, barley and other crop stalks left over after harvesting. Combined with recycled paper and other fillers, some paper makers are finding that agri-pulp paper makes fine stationery.
Urgency: Although growing new trees makes papermaking a renewable resource, according to a 1996 report from the U.S. Forest Service, the rate of harvest for softwood trees in the southern United States outpaced growth for the first time since 1953. In addition, A common use for deforestation of the rainforests is for the production of paper, which accounts for more than 40 percent of logged trees. As many know, approximately 25% of the world’s oxygen comes from rain forest.
We have the technology now to resolve the problems with paper reduction, namely:
I suggest we make it a national priority to save the world’s forest from paper production.