As artificial intelligence (AI) progresses, there's
always the fear that it might get out of control with machines
thinking for themselves and taking over the world like Skynet in
The Terminator films. We ask how close we are to an invasion led by
artificially intelligent machines, conscious computers or even a
smartphone virus so smart that it can start mimicking
you.
You might think that such scenarios are laughably futuristic,
but some of the world's leading AI researchers are concerned enough
about the potential impact of advances in AI that they have been
discussing the risks over the past year. Now they have revealed
their conclusions.
Until now, research in artificial intelligence has been mainly
occupied by myriad basic challenges that have turned out to be very
complex, such as teaching machines to distinguish between everyday
objects. Human-level artificial intelligence or self-evolving
machines were seen as long-term, abstract goals not yet ready for
serious consideration.
Now, for the first time, a panel of 25 AI scientists,
roboticists, and ethical and legal scholars has been convened to
address these issues, under the auspices of the
Association for the
Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) in Menlo Park,
California. It looked at the feasibility and ramifications of
seemingly far-fetched ideas, such as the possibility of the
internet becoming self-aware.
The panel drew inspiration from the
1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA in
California, in which over 140 biologists, physicians, and
lawyers considered the possibilities and dangers of the then
emerging technology for creating
DNA sequences that did not exist in nature. Delegates at that
conference foresaw that genetic engineering would become
widespread, even though practical applications – such as growing
genetically modified crops – had not yet been developed.
Unlike recombinant DNA in 1975, however, AI is already out in
the world. Robots like
Roombas and
Scoobas help with the mundane chores of vacuuming
and mopping, while decision-making devices are assisting in
complex, sometimes life-and-
death situations. For example,
Poseidon Technologies, sells AI systems that help
lifeguards identify when a person is drowning in a swimming pool,
and Microsoft's Clearflow system helps drivers pick the best route
by analysing traffic behaviour.
At the moment such systems only advise or assist humans, but the
AAAI panel warns that the day is not far off when machines could
have far greater ability to make and execute decisions on their
own, albeit within a narrow range of expertise. As such AI systems
become more commonplace, what breakthroughs can we reasonably
expect, and what effects will they have on society? What's more,
what precautions should we be taking?
These are among the many questions that the panel tackled, under
the chairmanship of
Eric Horvitz, president of the AAAI and senior
researcher with Microsoft Research. The group began meeting by
phone and teleconference in mid-2008, then in February this year
its members gathered at Asilomar, a quiet town on the north
California coast, for a weekend to debate and seek consensus. They
presented their initial findings at the
International
Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) in
Pasadena, California, on 15 July.
Panel members told IJCAI that they unanimously agreed that
creating human-level artificial intelligence – a system capable of
expertise across a range of domains – is possible in principle, but
disagreed as to when such a breakthrough might occur, with
estimates varying wildly between 20 and 1000 years.
Panel member Tom Dietterich of Oregon State University in
Corvallis pointed out that much of today's AI research is not aimed
at building a general human-level AI system, but rather focuses on
"idiot-savants" systems good at tasks in a very narrow range of
application, such as mathematics.
The panel discussed at length the idea of an AI "singularity" –
a runaway chain reaction of machines capable of building
ever-better machines. While admitting that it was theoretically
possible, most members were skeptical that such an exponential AI
explosion would occur in the foreseeable future, given the lack of
projects today that could lead to systems capable of improving upon
themselves. "Perhaps the singularity is not the biggest of our
worries," said Dietterich.
A more realistic short-term concern is the possibility of
malware that can mimic the digital behavior of humans. According to
the panel, identity thieves might feasibly plant a virus on a
person's smartphone that would silently monitor their text
messages, email, voice, diary and bank details. The virus could
then use these to impersonate that individual with little or no
external guidance from the thieves. Most researchers think that
they can develop such a virus. "If we could do it, they could,"
said Tom
Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, referring to organised
crime syndicates.
Peter Szolovits, an AI researcher at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was not on the panel,
agrees that common everyday computer systems such as smartphones
have layers of complexity that could lead to unintended
consequences or allow malicious exploitation. "There are a few
thousand lines of code running on my cell phone and I sure as hell
haven't verified all of them," he says.
"These are potentially powerful technologies that could be used
in good ways and not so good ways," says Horvitz, and cautions that
besides the threat posed by malware, we are close to creating
systems so complex and opaque that we don't understand them.
Given such possibilities, "what's the responsibility of an AI
researcher?" says Bart Selman of Cornell, co-chair of the panel.
"We're starting to think about it."
At least for now we can rest easy on one score. The panel
concluded that the internet is not about to become self-aware.
All images from
Rex Features.
This article originally appeared on
New Scientist.