Robotics expert Noel Sharkey used to be a believer in artificial
intelligence, but now thinks AI is a dangerous myth that could lead
to a dystopian future of unintelligent, unfeeling robot carers and
soldiers. Nic Fleming finds out
What do you mean when you talk about artificial
intelligence?
I like AI pioneer Marvin MinskyMovie Camera's definition of AI
as the science of making machines do things that would require
intelligence if done by humans. However, some very smart human
things can be done in dumb ways by machines. Humans have a very
limited memory, and so for us, chess is a difficult
pattern-recognition problem that requires intelligence. A computer
like Deep Blue wins by brute force, searching quickly through the
outcomes of millions of moves. It is like arm-wrestling with a
mechanical digger. I would rework Minsky's definition as the
science of making machines do things that lead us to believe they
are intelligent.
Are machines capable of intelligence?
If we are talking intelligence in the animal sense, from the
developments to date, I would have to say no. For me AI is a field
of outstanding engineering achievements that helps us to model
living systems but not replace them. It is the person who designs
the algorithms and programs the machine who is intelligent, not the
machine itself.
Are we close to building a machine that can meaningfully
be described as sentient?
I'm an empirical kind of guy, and there is just no evidence of
an artificial toehold in sentience. It is often forgotten that the
idea of mind or brain as computational is merely an assumption, not
a truth. When I point this out to "believers" in the computational
theory of mind, some of their arguments are almost religious. They
say, "What else could there be? Do you think mind is supernatural?"
But accepting mind as a physical entity does not tell us what kind
of physical entity it is. It could be a physical system that cannot
be recreated by a computer.
The mind could be a type of physical system that cannot be
recreated by computer
So why are predictions about robots taking over the
world so common?
There has always been fear of new technologies based upon
people's difficulties in understanding rapid developments. I love
science fiction and find it inspirational, but I treat it as
fiction. Technological artefacts do not have a will or a desire, so
why would they "want" to take over? Isaac Asimov said that when he
started writing about robots, the idea that robots were going to
take over the world was the only story in town. Nobody wants to
hear otherwise. I used to find when newspaper reporters called me
and I said I didn't believe AI or robots would take over the world,
they would say thank you very much, hang up and never report my
comments.
You describe AI as the science of illusion.
It is my contention that AI, and particularly robotics, exploits
natural human zoomorphism. We want robots to appear like humans or
animals, and this is assisted by cultural myths about AI and a
willing suspension of disbelief. The old automata makers, going
back as far as Hero of Alexandria, who made the first programmable
robot in AD 60, saw their work as part of natural magic - the use
of trick and illusion to make us believe their machines were alive.
Modern robotics preserves this tradition with machines that can
recognise emotion and manipulate silicone faces to show empathy.
There are AI language programs that search databases to find
conversationally appropriate sentences. If AI workers would accept
the trickster role and be honest about it, we might progress a lot
quicker.
These views are in stark contrast to those of many of
your peers in the robotics field.
Yes. Roboticist Hans Moravec says that computer processing speed
will eventually overtake that of the human brain and make them our
superiors. The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with
machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy
tales. I don't see any sign of it happening. These ideas are based
on the assumption that intelligence is computational. It might be,
and equally it might not be. My work is on immediate problems in
AI, and there is no evidence that machines will ever overtake us or
gain sentience.
And you believe that there are dangers if we fool
ourselves into believing the AI myth...
It is likely to accelerate our progress towards a dystopian
world in which wars, policing and care of the vulnerable are
carried out by technological artefacts that have no possibility of
empathy, compassion or understanding.
How would you feel about a robot carer looking after you
in old age?
Eldercare robotics is being developed quite rapidly in Japan.
Robots could be greatly beneficial in keeping us out of care homes
in our old age, performing many dull duties for us and aiding in
tasks that failing memories make difficult. But it is a trade-off.
My big concern is that once the robots have been tried and tested,
it may be tempting to leave us entirely in their care. Like all
humans, the elderly need love and human contact, and this often
only comes from visiting carers. A robot companion would not fulfil
that need for me.
You also have concerns about military
robots.
The many thousands of robots in the air and on the ground are
producing great military advantages, which is why at least 43
countries have development programmes of their own. No one can deny
the benefit of their use in bomb disposal and surveillance to
protect soldiers' lives. My concerns are with the use of armed
robots. Drone attacks are often reliant on unreliable intelligence
in the same way as in Vietnam, where the US ended up targeting
people who were owed gambling debts by its informants. This
over-reaching of the technology is killing many innocent people.
Recent US planning documents show there is a drive towards
developing autonomous killing machines. There is no way for any AI
system to discriminate between a combatant and an innocent. Claims
that such a system is coming soon are unsupportable and
irresponsible.
Is this why you are calling for ethical guidelines and
laws to govern the use of robots?
In the areas of robot ethics that I have written about -
childcare, policing, military, eldercare and medical - I have spent
a lot of time looking at current legislation around the world and
found it wanting. I think there is a need for urgent discussions
among the various professional bodies, the citizens and the policy
makers to decide while there is still time. These developments
could be upon us as fast as the internet was, and we are not
prepared. My fear is that once the technological genie is out of
the bottle it will be too late to put it back.
The organisers of the robot soccerMovie Camera
competition RoboCup aim to develop an autonomous robot soccer team
that can beat a human team by 2050. How do you rate their
chances?
Football requires a certain kind of intelligence. Someone like
David Beckham can look at the movement of the players, predict
where the ball is likely to go and put himself in the right place.
Soccer robots can move quickly, punch the ball hard and get it
accurately into the net, but they cannot look at the pattern of the
game and guess where the ball is going to end up. I can't see
robots matching humans at football strategy. But in the 1960s
everyone was pretty sure that AI would never succeed at
championship chess, so who knows? Like chess programs, soccer
robots may win by brute force - although I don't think they will be
very good at faking fouls.
Profile
Born in Belfast, UK, Noel Sharkey left school at 15, working as
an apprentice electrician, railway worker, guitarist and chef,
before studying psychology and getting his PhD at the University of
Exeter. He has held positions at Yale, Stanford and Berkeley, and
is now professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the
University of Sheffield. He hosts The Sound of Science radio show
(www.soundofscience.wordpress.com)