三级aa视频在线观看-三级国产-三级国产精品一区二区-三级国产三级在线-三级国产在线

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
China
Home / China / Innovation

How scared should we be about machines taking over?

Life 3.0 by Mark Tegmark argues questions about artificial intelligence need be confronted sooner rather than later

By Steven Poole | China Daily USA | Updated: 2017-12-04 14:07
Share
Share - WeChat

‘Prediction is very difficult,” the great physicist Niels Bohr is supposed to have said, “especially when it’s about the future.” That hasn’t stopped a wave of --popular-science books from giving it go, and attempting, in particular, to sketch the coming takeover of the world by superintelligent machines.

This artificial-intelligence explosion — whereby machines design ever-more-intelligent successors of themselves — might not happen soon, but Max Tegmark, an American physicist and founder of the Future of Life Institute, thinks that questions about AI need to be addressed urgently, before it’s too late. If we can build a “general artificial intelligence” — one that’s good not just at playing chess but at everything — what safeguards do we need to have in place to ensure that we survive?

We are not talking here about movie scenarios featuring killer robots with red eyes. Tegmark finds it annoying when discussions of AI in the media are illustrated like this: the Terminator films, for example, are not very interesting for him because the machines are only a little bit cleverer than the humans. He outlines some subtler doomsday scenarios. Even an AI that is programmed to want nothing but to manufacture as many paper clips as possible could eradicate humanity if not carefully designed. After all, paper clips are made of atoms, and human beings are a handy source of atoms that could more fruitfully be rearranged as paper clips.

What if we programmed our godlike AI to maximise the happiness of all humanity? That sounds like a better idea than making paper clips, but the devil’s in the detail. The AI might decide that the best way to maximise everyone’s happiness is to cut out our brains and connect them to a heavenly virtual reality in perpetuity. Or it could keep the majority entertained and awed by the regular bloody sacrifice of a small minority. This is what Tegmark calls the problem of “value alignment”, a slightly depressing application of business jargon: we need to ensure that the machine’s values are our own.

What, exactly, are our own values? It turns out to be very difficult to define what we would want from a superintelligence in ways that are completely rigorous and admit of no misunderstanding. And besides, millennia of war and moral philosophy show that humans do not share a single set of values in the first place. So, though it is pleasing that Tegmark calls for vigorously renewed work in philosophy and ethics, one may doubt that it will lead to successful consensus.

Even if progress is made on such problems, a deeper difficulty boils down to that of confidently predicting what will be done by a being that, intellectually, will be to us as we are to ants. Even if we can communicate with it, its actions might very well seem to us incomprehensible. As Wittgenstein said: “If a lion could talk, we could not understand it.” The same might well go for a superintelligence. Imagine a mouse creating a human-level AI, Tegmark suggests, “and figuring it will want to build entire cities out of cheese”.

A sceptic might wonder whether any of this talk, though fascinating in itself, is really important right now, what with global warming and numerous other seemingly more urgent problems. Tegmark makes a good fist of arguing that it is, even though he is agnostic about just how soon superintelligence might appear: estimates among modern AI researchers vary from a decade or two to centuries to never, but if there is even a very small chance of something happening soon that could be an extinction-level catastrophe for humanity, it’s definitely worth thinking about.

In this way, superintelligence arguably falls into the same category as a massive asteroid strike such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. The “precautionary principle” says that it’s worth expending resources on trying to avert such unlikely but potentially apocalyptic events.

In the meantime, Tegmark’s book, along with Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence (2014), stand out among the current books about our possible AI futures. It is more scientifically and philosophically reliable than Yuval Noah Harari’s peculiar Homo Deus, and less monotonously eccentric than Robin Hanson’s The Age of Em.

Tegmark explains brilliantly many concepts in fields from computing to cosmology, writes with intellectual modesty and subtlety, does the reader the important service of defining his terms clearly, and rightly pays homage to the creative minds of science-fiction writers who were, of course, addressing these kinds of questions more than half a century ago. It’s often very funny, too: I particularly liked the line about how, if conscious life had not emerged on our planet, then the entire universe would just be “a gigantic waste of space”.

Tegmark emphasises, too, that the future is not all doom and gloom. “It’s a mistake to passively ask ‘what will happen’, as if it were somehow predestined,” he points out. We have a choice about what will happen with technologies, and it is worth doing the groundwork now that will inform our choices when they need to be made.

Do we want to live in a world where we are essentially the tolerated zoo animals of a powerful computer version of Ayn Rand; or will we inadvertently allow the entire universe to be colonised by “unconscious zombie AI”; or would we rather usher in a utopia in which happy machines do all the work and we have infinite leisure?

The last sounds nicest, although even then we’d probably still spend all day looking at our phones.

Steven Poole’s Rethink: the Surprising History of New Ideas is published by Random House

Run Smart: Using Science to Improve Performance and Expose Marathon Running’s Greatest Myths, by John Brewer, is published by Bloomsbury, £12.99

374pp, Allen Lane, £20, ebook £9.99

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
 
主站蜘蛛池模板: 99热久久这里只精品国产www | 欧美成人xx禁片在线观看 | 欧美一级日韩 | 无码免费一区二区三区免费播放 | 在线黄色网 | 东京不热视频在线观看 | 午夜在线免费视频 | 久久精品国产精品亚洲红杏 | 黄色网址免费在线观看 | 一本色道久久综合亚洲精品加 | 免费的黄色小视频 | 麻豆视频免费入口 | 日韩区欧美区 | 亚洲人视频 | 91成人免费福利网站在线 | 亚洲欧美日韩激情在线观看 | 成人在线观看视频免费 | 日韩视频免费 | 日鲁夜鲁天天鲁视频 | 日韩在线视频中文字幕 | 国产精品嫩草影院在线看 | 97视频在线播放 | 免费成人黄色片 | 国产激情网 | 国产一级做性视频 | 国内成人精品亚洲日本语音 | 免费人成又黄又爽的视频在线 | 免费大片黄在线观看日本 | 国产尤物二区三区在线观看 | 色婷婷六月桃花综合影院 | 欧美午夜免费一级毛片 | 成年视频在线播放 | 欧美日韩乱妇高清免费 | 精品国产福利第一区二区三区 | 毛片黄片免费看 | 一区二区视频在线观看高清视频在线 | 亚洲影视精品 | 欧美午夜精品 | 中文日韩 | 亚洲成人福利在线观看 | 日本高清动作片www网站免费 |