Tag Archives: louis del monte

Digital illustration of a human head with a microchip embedded in the forehead, symbolizing AI or brain-computer interface technology.

When Will A Computer Equal a Human Brain?

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, , ,

If we want to view the human brain in terms of a computer, one approach would be to take the number of calculations per second that an average human brain is able to process and compare that with today’s best computers. This is not an exact science. No one really knows how many calculations per second an average human brain is able to process, but some estimates (www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/18/earths-supercomputing-power-surpasses-human-brain-three-times-over) suggest it is in the order of 36.8 petaflops of data (a petaflop is equal to one quadrillion calculations per second). Let us compare the human brain’s processing power with the best current computers on record, listed below by year and processing-power achievement.

  • June 18, 2012: IBM’s Sequoia supercomputer system, based at the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), reached sixteen petaflops, setting the world record and claiming first place in the latest TOP500 list (a list of the top five hundred computers ranked by a benchmark known as LINPACK (related to their ability to solve a set of linear equations) to decide whether they qualify for the TOP500.
  • November 12, 2012: The TOP500 list certified Titan as the world’s fastest supercomputer per the LINPACK benchmark, at 17.59 petaflops. Cray Incorporated, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, developed it.
  • June 10, 2013: China’s Tianhe-2 was ranked the world’s fastest supercomputer, with a record of 33.86 petaflops.

Using Moore’s law (i.e., computer processing power doubles every eighteen months), we can extrapolate that in terms of raw processing power (petaflops), computer processing power will meet or exceed that of the human mind by about 2015 to 2017. This does not mean that by 2017 we will have a computer that is equal to the human mind. Software plays a key role in both processing power (MIPS) and AI.

To understand the critical role that software plays, we must understand what we are asking AI to accomplish in emulating human intelligence. Here is a thumbnail sketch of the capabilities that researchers consider necessary.

  • Reasoning: step-by-step reasoning that humans use to solve problems or make logical decisions
  • Knowledge: extensive knowledge, similar to what an educated human would possess
  • Planning: the ability to set goals and achieve them
  • Learning: the ability to acquire knowledge through experience and use that knowledge to improve
  • Language: the ability to understand the languages humans speak and write
  • Moving: the ability to move and navigate, including knowing where it is relative to other objects and obstacles
  • Manipulation: the ability to secure and handle an object
  • Vision: the ability to analyze visual input, including facial and object recognition
  • Social intelligence: the ability to recognize, interpret, and process human psychology and emotions and respond appropriately
  • Creativity: the ability to generate outputs that can be considered creative or the ability to identify and assess creativity

This list makes clear that raw computer processing and sensing are only two elements in emulating the human mind. Obviously software is also a critical element. Each of the capabilities delineated above requires a computer program. To emulate a human mind, the computer programs would need to act both independently and interactively, depending on the specific circumstance.

In terms of raw computer processing, with the development of China’s Tianhe-2 computer, we are on the threshold of having a computer with the raw processing power of a human mind. The development of a computer that will emulate a human mind, however, may still be one, two, or even more decades away, due to software and sensing requirements.

Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte

A futuristic humanoid robot with a sleek design and expressive face, holding one hand up as if presenting something.

Can an Artificially Intelligent Machine Have Human-like Emotions?

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, , , , ,

Affective computing is a relatively new science. It is the science of programming computers to recognize, interpret, process, and simulate human affects. The word “affects” refers to the experience or display of feelings or emotions.

While AI has achieved superhuman status in playing chess and quiz-show games, it does not have the emotional equivalence of a four-year-old child. For example a four-year-old may love to play with toys. The child laughs with delight as the toy performs some function, such as a toy cat meowing when it is squeezed. If you take the toy away from the child, the child may become sad and cry. Computers are unable to achieve any emotional response similar to that of a four-year-old child. Computers do not exhibit joy or sadness. Some researchers believe this is actually a good thing. The intelligent machine processes and acts on information without coloring it with emotions. When you go to an ATM, you will not have to argue with the ATM regarding whether you can afford to make a withdrawal, and a robotic assistant will not lose its temper if you do not thank it after it performs a service. Highly meaningful human interactions with intelligent machines, however, will require that machines simulate human affects, such as empathy. In fact some researchers argue that machines should be able to interpret the emotional state of humans and adapt their behavior accordingly, giving appropriate responses for those emotions. For example if you are in a state of panic because your spouse is apparently having a heart attack, when you ask the machine to call for medical assistance, it should understand the urgency. In addition it will be impossible for an intelligent machine to be truly equal to a human brain without the machine possessing human affects. For example how could an artificial human brain write a romance novel without understanding love, hate, and jealousy?

Progress concerning the development of computers with human affects has been slow. In fact this particular computer science originated with Rosalind Picard’s 1995 paper on affective computing (“Affective Computing,” MIT Technical Report #321, abstract, 1995). The single greatest problem involved in developing and programming computers to emulate the emotions of the human brain is that we do not fully understand how emotions are processed in the human brain. We are unable to pinpoint a specific area of the brain and scientifically argue that it is responsible for specific human emotions, which has raised questions. Are human emotions byproducts of human intelligence? Are they the result of distributed functions within the human brain? Are they learned, or are we born with them? There is no universal agreement regarding the answers to these questions. Nonetheless work on studying human affects and developing affective computing is continuing.

Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte

Side profile of a futuristic humanoid robot with a white face and visible mechanical components against a pale blue background.

Is Strong Artificial Intelligence a New Life-Form? – Part 4/4 (Conclusion)

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, , , , ,

In our previous posts, we discussed that there is an awareness that SAMs (i.e., strong artificially intelligent machines) may become hostile toward humans, and AI remains an unregulated branch of engineering. The computer you buy eighteen months from now will be twice as capable as the one you can buy today.

Where does this leave us regarding the following questions?

  • Is strong AI a new life-form?
  • Should we afford these machines “robot” rights?

In his 1990 book The Age of Intelligent Machines, Kurzweil predicted that in 2099 organic humans will be protected from extermination and respected by strong AI, regardless of their shortcomings and frailties, because they gave rise to the machines. To my mind the possibility of this scenario eventually playing out is questionable. Although I believe a case can be made that strong AI is a new life-form, we need to be extremely careful with regard to granting SAMs rights, especially rights similar to those possessed by human. Anthony Berglas expresses it best in his 2008 book Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren, in which he notes:

  • There is no evolutionary motivation for AI to be friendly to humans.
  • AI would have its own evolutionary pressures (i.e., competing with other AIs for computer hardware and energy).
  • Humankind would find it difficult to survive a competition with more intelligent machines.

Based on the above, carefully consider the following question. Should SAMs be granted machine rights? Perhaps in a limited sense, but we must maintain the right to shut down the machine as well as limit its intelligence. If our evolutionary path is to become cyborgs, this is a step we should take only after understanding the full implications. We need to decide when (under which circumstances), how, and how quickly we take this step. We must control the singularity, or it will control us. Time is short because the singularity is approaching with the stealth and agility of a leopard stalking a lamb, and for the singularity, the lamb is humankind.

Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte

A metallic skull with glowing red eyes and wires attached, set against a black background.

Is Strong Artificial Intelligence a New Life-Form? – Part 3/4

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, , , , , , ,

Can we expect an artificially intelligent machine to behave ethically? There is a field of research that addresses this question, namely machine ethics. This field focuses on designing artificial moral agents (AMAs), robots, or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally. This thrust is not new. More than sixty years ago, Isaac Asimov considered the issue in his collection of nine science-fiction stories, published as I, Robot in 1950. In this book, at the insistence of his editor, John W. Campbell Jr., Asimov proposed his now famous three laws of robotics.

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except in cases where such orders would conflict with the first law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

Asimov, however, expressed doubts that the three laws would be sufficient to govern the morality of artificially intelligent systems. In fact he spent much of his time testing the boundaries of the three laws to detect where they might break down or create paradoxical or unanticipated behavior. He concluded that no set of laws could anticipate all circumstances. It turns out Asimov was correct.

To understand just how correct he was, let us discuss a 2009 experiment performed by the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. The experiment involved robots programmed to cooperate with one another in searching out a beneficial resource and avoiding a poisonous one. Surprisingly the robots learned to lie to one another in an attempt to hoard the beneficial resource (“Evolving Robots Learn to Lie to Each Other,” Popular Science, August 18, 2009). Does this experiment suggest the human emotion (or mind-set) of greed is a learned behavior? If intelligent machines can learn greed, what else can they learn? Wouldn’t self-preservation be even more important to an intelligent machine?

Where would robots learn self-preservation? An obvious answer is on the battlefield. That is one reason some AI researchers question the use of robots in military operations, especially when the robots are programmed with some degree of autonomous functions. If this seems farfetched, consider that a US Navy–funded study recommends that as military robots become more complex, greater attention should be paid to their ability to make autonomous decisions (Joseph L. Flatley, “Navy Report Warns of Robot Uprising, Suggests a Strong Moral Compass,” www.engadget.com). Could we end up with a Terminator scenario (one in which machines attempt to exterminate the human race)? This issue is real, and researchers are addressing it to a limited extent. Some examples include:

  • In 2008 the president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence commissioned a study titled “AAAI Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures.” Its main purpose was to address the aforementioned issue. AAAI’s interim report can be accessed at https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/AAAI_Presidential_Panel_2008-2009.htm.
  • Popular science-fiction author Vernor Vinge suggests in his writings that the scenario of some computers becoming smarter than humans may be somewhat or possibly extremely dangerous for humans (Vernor Vinge, “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era,” Department of Mathematical Sciences, San Diego State University, 1993).
  • In 2009 academics and technical experts held a conference to discuss the hypothetical possibility that intelligent machines could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions (John Markoff, “Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man,” The New York Times, July 26, 2009). They noted: 1)Some machines have acquired various forms of semiautonomy, including being able to find power sources and independently choose targets to attack with weapons. 2)Some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved “cockroach intelligence.”
  • The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence stresses the need to build “friendly AI” (i.e., AI that is intrinsically friendly and humane). In this regard Ni ck Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher at St. Cross College at the University of Oxford, and Eliezer Yudkowsky, an American blogger, writer, and advocate for friendly artificial intelligence, have argued for decision trees over neural networks and genetic algorithms. They argue that decision trees obey modern social norms of transparency and predictability. Bostrom also published a paper, “Existential Risks,” in the Journal of Evolution and Technology that states artificial intelligence has the capability to bring about human extinction.
  • In 2009 authors Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen addressed the question of machine ethics in Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong (New York: Oxford University Press). In this book they brought greater attention to the controversial issue of which specific learning algorithms to use in machines.

While the above discussion indicates there is an awareness that SAMs may become hostile toward humans, no legislation or regulation has resulted. AI remains an unregulated branch of engineering, and the computer you buy eighteen months from now will be twice as capable as the one you can buy today.

Where does this leave us? We will address the key questions in the next post.

Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis A. Del Monte

A futuristic humanoid robot with a sleek design and expressive face, holding one hand up as if presenting something.

Is Strong Artificial Intelligence a New Life-Form? – Part 2/4

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, , , , ,

In our last post we raised questions regarding the ethics of technology, which is typically divided into two categories.

  1. Roboethics: This category focuses on the moral behavior of humans as they design, construct, use, and treat artificially intelligent beings.
  2. Machine ethics: This category focuses on the moral behavior of artificial moral agents (AMAs).

Let us start by discussing roboethics. In 2002 Italian engineer Gianmarco Veruggio coined the term “roboethics,” which refers to the morality of how humans design, construct, use, and treat robots and other artificially intelligent beings. Specifically it considers how AI may be used to benefit and/or harm humans. This raises the question of robot rights, namely what are the moral obligations of society toward its artificially intelligent machines? In many ways this question parallels the moral obligations of society toward animals. For computers with strong AI, this idea may even parallel the concept of human rights, such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and even equality before the law.

How seriously should we take roboethics? At this point no intelligent machine completely emulates a human brain. Kurzweil, however, predicts that such a machine will exist by 2029. By some accounts he is a pessimist, as bioethicist Glenn McGee predicts that humanoid robots may appear by 2020. Although predictions regarding AI are often optimistic, Kurzweil, as mentioned, has been on target about 94 percent of the time. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that within a decade or two we will have machines that fully emulate a human brain. Based on this it is necessary to take the concepts of robot rights and the implications regarding giving robots rights seriously. In fact this is beginning to occur, and the issue of robot rights has been under consideration by the Institute for the Future and by the UK Department of Trade and Industry (“Robots Could Demand Legal rights,” BBC News, December 21, 2006).

At first the entire concept of robot rights may seem absurd. Since we do not have machines that emulate a human brain exactly, this possibility does not appear to be in our national consciousness. Let us fast-forward to 2029, however, and assume Kurzweil’s prediction is correct. Suddenly we have artificial intelligence that is on equal footing with human intelligence and appears to exhibit human emotion. Do we, as a nation, concede that we have created a new life-form? Do we grant robots rights under the law? The implications are serious; if we grant strong-AI robots rights equal to human rights, we may be giving up our right to control the singularity. Indeed robot rights eventually may override human rights.

Consider this scenario. As humans, we have inalienable rights, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not all political systems agree with this). In the United States, the Bill of Rights protects our rights. If we give machines with strong AI the same rights, will we be able to control the intelligence explosion once each generation of strong-AI machines (SAMs) designs another generation with even greater intelligences? Will we have the right to control the machines? Will we be able to decide how the singularity unfolds?

We adopted animal rights to protect animals in circumstances in which they are unable to protect themselves. We saw this as humane and necessary. However, animal rights do not parallel human rights. In addition humankind reserves the right to exterminate any animal (such as the smallpox virus) that threatens humankind’s existence. Intelligent machines pose a threat that is similar and perhaps even more dangerous than extremely harmful pathogens (viruses and bacteria), which makes the entire issue of robot rights more important. If machines gain rights equal to those of humans, there is little doubt that eventually the intelligence of SAMs will eclipse that of humans. There would be no law that prevents this from happening. At that point will machines demand greater rights than humans? Will machines pose a threat to human rights? This brings us to another critical question: Which moral obligations (machine ethics) do intelligent machines have toward humankind?

We will address the above question in our next post.

Source: The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), Louis Del Monte