3 ms·

An idea, I don't know if it's original or not: I think we can make AI that is 'intelligent' but has no personality or 'self'. An oracle machine you can ask an

An idea, I don't know if it's original or not: I think we can make AI that is 'intelligent' but has no personality or 'self'. An oracle machine you can ask any question of, but it's not an evil genie looking to escape and take over the universe, because it is not a person, and has no drives of its own. Consider how we have recently made an AI that can defeat the best humans at Go. Even 10 years ago, this was thought to be impossible for some time to come. "Go is a complicated game, too big to calculate, requiring a mix of strategy and subtlety that machines won't be able to match". Nope. Now, AlphaGo can defeat the best humans, with a 'subtlety' and 'nuance' that can't be matched. But it is not a person. We might be able to do the same in other areas. Note that games like chess and go are sometimes played as 'cyborg' competitions now, where the human players are allowed to consult with computers. Imagine if the Supreme Court were still headed by the human judges we have today, but they consulted with soulless machines that have no drives of their own, that can provide arguments and insight that humans can't match. Imagine if, in addition to the human judges written opinions, there were a bevy of non-voting opinions 'written' by AIs like this. Or if every court case in the world had automatic amicus briefs provided by incredibly sophisticated legal savants with no personality or skin in the game. Note that several moves that AlphaGo played were complete surprises. We have thousands of people observing these matches, people who have devoted their whole lives to studying the subtleties of this complex game. There are less than 361 choices for where to move next. And AlphaGo plays a move that nobody had seriously considered, but, once played, the experts realize we've lost the match. That is really remarkable. I think this future (non-person intelligent helpers) is definitely possible. But it doesn't solve the problem of 'evil' humans building an AI that is a person who agrees with their evil beliefs. I don't have an answer for that.

supermdguy 9y ago
That sounds less technical and more philosophical. From a practical perspective, does it really matter if an intelligence has no self? If the AI judge decides to execute someone, is it ok just because the AI doesn't have a personality?
- dustyleary 9y ago
  Yes. Remember, this isn't an AI judge, it's an AI advisor. The actual judge who decides to execute someone is still human. The AI advisor has no wants of its own. It doesn't have personal opinions about politics, and we don't have to worry about whether the advice it gives is really to further some internal agenda so that it can take over the world.
  - supermdguy 9y ago
    By definition, an AI has to have some form of "wants", in the form of minimizing a loss function. Otherwise, it wouldn't do anything.
    - dustyleary 9y ago
      Yes, but this is qualitatively different from the AI being a 'person' whose motives you have to question. What are AlphaGo's motives? An AI judge will be optimizing for the things that we build an AI judge to optimize for, the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Consistency with past rulings, not issuing judgements that open up tricky interactions with other laws/judgements, erring on the side of caution when the sentence will ruin the defendant's life, etc. But it still won't have "motives". We won't wonder if it issues a particular judgement because 5% of its investment portfolio is allocated to pharmaceutical companies, or if it believes that the USA would be a better place if all the black people "went back to Africa".
      - supermdguy 9y ago
        In an ideal world, I think this would work out. The problem is, I can't trust anyone to create an AI that's truly unbiased. > the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Who is "we"? Everyone has different motives, so having a human create an optimization function won't create a truly unbiased machine. I think any good AI will have to create its own "opinions" to be of any worth.
cconcepts 9y ago
This concept of not having a "self" is an interesting one and possibly a capacity that only humans have. If AI never has a concept of "self" does it decrease the likelihood of it becoming self-protective? What does perception of self even mean to us as humans and how could we be sure that a machine couldn't attain it?
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  > If AI never has a concept of "self" does it decrease the likelihood of it becoming self-protective? I would imagine.. not.. but I'm clueless in this area, so don't take my word as meaningful. I come to this thought because I think the scary thing about AI is having a almost entirely foreign thought process, that reaches conclusions we (humans) instinctively ruled out. It's the basic programmer joke of buying eggs from the store (I forget the syntax offhand haha). Take global warming. What are the best ways to stop global warming, as fast as possible? I imagine one of them is to wipe out all life as we know it, assuming that doesn't create more atmospheric chemicals in the process. Mind you, I'm not saying the AI will instantly become Skynet, but what I am saying is that I think it can behave similar to "Skynet" without needing to have motivations of it's own, or even motivations outside of what we have asked of it. The road to ruin is laid with best intentions, right? I'm not fear mongering, I'm quite looking forward to AI and I don't have much fear of AI. Ultimately I think as terrifying as AI could become, humans will be equally terrifying. Our technological advancements continue to give us more and more power. If doom is coming due to technology, I don't see AI as the only harbinger of doom.

supermdguy 9y ago

That sounds less technical and more philosophical. From a practical perspective, does it really matter if an intelligence has no self? If the AI judge decides to execute someone, is it ok just because the AI doesn't have a personality?

dustyleary 9y ago
Yes. Remember, this isn't an AI judge, it's an AI advisor. The actual judge who decides to execute someone is still human. The AI advisor has no wants of its own. It doesn't have personal opinions about politics, and we don't have to worry about whether the advice it gives is really to further some internal agenda so that it can take over the world.
- supermdguy 9y ago
  By definition, an AI has to have some form of "wants", in the form of minimizing a loss function. Otherwise, it wouldn't do anything.
  - dustyleary 9y ago
    Yes, but this is qualitatively different from the AI being a 'person' whose motives you have to question. What are AlphaGo's motives? An AI judge will be optimizing for the things that we build an AI judge to optimize for, the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Consistency with past rulings, not issuing judgements that open up tricky interactions with other laws/judgements, erring on the side of caution when the sentence will ruin the defendant's life, etc. But it still won't have "motives". We won't wonder if it issues a particular judgement because 5% of its investment portfolio is allocated to pharmaceutical companies, or if it believes that the USA would be a better place if all the black people "went back to Africa".
    - supermdguy 9y ago
      In an ideal world, I think this would work out. The problem is, I can't trust anyone to create an AI that's truly unbiased. > the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Who is "we"? Everyone has different motives, so having a human create an optimization function won't create a truly unbiased machine. I think any good AI will have to create its own "opinions" to be of any worth.

cconcepts 9y ago

This concept of not having a "self" is an interesting one and possibly a capacity that only humans have. If AI never has a concept of "self" does it decrease the likelihood of it becoming self-protective? What does perception of self even mean to us as humans and how could we be sure that a machine couldn't attain it?

notheguyouthink 9y ago
> If AI never has a concept of "self" does it decrease the likelihood of it becoming self-protective? I would imagine.. not.. but I'm clueless in this area, so don't take my word as meaningful. I come to this thought because I think the scary thing about AI is having a almost entirely foreign thought process, that reaches conclusions we (humans) instinctively ruled out. It's the basic programmer joke of buying eggs from the store (I forget the syntax offhand haha). Take global warming. What are the best ways to stop global warming, as fast as possible? I imagine one of them is to wipe out all life as we know it, assuming that doesn't create more atmospheric chemicals in the process. Mind you, I'm not saying the AI will instantly become Skynet, but what I am saying is that I think it can behave similar to "Skynet" without needing to have motivations of it's own, or even motivations outside of what we have asked of it. The road to ruin is laid with best intentions, right? I'm not fear mongering, I'm quite looking forward to AI and I don't have much fear of AI. Ultimately I think as terrifying as AI could become, humans will be equally terrifying. Our technological advancements continue to give us more and more power. If doom is coming due to technology, I don't see AI as the only harbinger of doom.