Since decades, people have debated whether or not artificial intelligence
would one day destroy humanity. In 2021, experts gave their opinion on
whether or not humans will be able to govern a highly advanced computer
super-intelligence. The response? Nearly certainly not.
The problem is that managing a super-intelligence that is beyond human
comprehension would need simulating and analyzing that super-intelligence
(and control). It is, however, impossible to develop such a simulation if we
are unable to understand it.
The authors of the new article contend that we cannot establish rules like
"do no damage to people" unless we are aware of the kinds of situations that
an AI is likely to encounter. We are unable to impose restrictions if a
computer system operates at a level beyond the capacity of our
programmers.
The
researchers concluded
that a super-intelligence presents a fundamentally distinct challenge from
ones that are generally investigated under the rubric of "robot
ethics."
This is due to a superintelligence's potential for being multifaceted and
its capacity to mobilize a variety of resources in order to achieve goals
that may be beyond human comprehension, let alone being under human
control.
The team's thinking was inspired in part by Alan Turing's 1936 formulation
of the
halting issue. The challenge is determining whether a computer program will cycle
endlessly in search of an answer or come to a resolution and stop.
While we can know that for certain specific programs, it is mathematically
impossible to develop a mechanism that will allow us to know that for every
hypothetical program that might ever be created, as Turing demonstrated
through some
clever arithmetic. That takes us back to AI, which in a super-intelligent state might
conceivably store every computer program in existence at once in its
memory.
It's mathematically impossible for us to be completely certain either way,
which implies that any program designed to stop AI from killing people and
ruining the earth, for example, may reach a conclusion (and cease). As a
result, it's not containable.
According to computer
scientist Iyad Rahwan
of the Max-Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany in 2021, "In
effect, this renders the confinement algorithm ineffective."
Limiting the capacities of the super-intelligence is an alternative to
teaching AI some morals and ordering it not to destroy the planet, something
that no algorithm can be 100% assured of accomplishing, according to the
researchers. It could, for instance, lose access to some networks or
portions of the internet.
The research disproved this notion as well, claiming that it would restrict
the use of artificial intelligence; the argument being that if we aren't
going to utilize it to address issues that are beyond the capabilities of
people, then why even construct it?
If we continue to advance artificial intelligence, because to its
incomprehensibility, we could not even be aware when a super-intelligence
outside of our control manifests. That suggests that we need to start really
evaluating the directions we're taking.
In 2021,
computer scientist Manuel Cebrian
from the Max-Planck Institute for Human Development remarked, "A
super-intelligent machine that dominates the world seems like science
fiction." However, there are now machines that carry out some crucial jobs
on their own without the programmers completely understanding how they did
it.
The concern of whether this may eventually spiral out of control and
endanger mankind emerges.
The research was published in the
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research.
