AI Ethics | AGI Ethics and the ethics of the "emperors"' opinion about the danger of the thinking machines for the "survival of humanity"

An answer to: Business Accelerated  - Meet Amelia, the AI Platform That Could Change the Future of IT: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245827


English international ethics

Just to mention how pathetic and inappropriately it sounds when an English professor in physics, sorry for being cynical - a bit caricaturically looking - is  cited as a "guru" who predicts and warns the world how dangerous AI is for the "future of humanity"... When his fellow "great" country England has conquered and robbed 1/4 of the world, starting from making their neighbour people slaves - the Irish and the others around. And they renamed their state "GREAT BRITAIN" - it's "Great England", mates and it's ridiculous when a country calls its own self "great".

England was a threat for the "future of humanity", but we survived, even though we were hurt in many ways, for example by the English language - that ambiguous and morphologically primitive "lingua franca" that everybody is forced to speak today...

US international ethics

Similraly pathetic is when US scientists, engineers or enterpreneurs, usually not in the AI, like one electric-car enterpreneur make their guru-sayings and warn "the humanity".

Why don't you say something about your fellow humans in your own fellow countries who "protect the world".

The sources say that the US army has nearly 900 military bases around the world, and military personnel in 130 nations (data is circa 2011, as of the cited source, see below). All know about the NATO and USA military interventions around the world.

Everybody knows the political obviousness that NATO is an American military institution and the EU is technically  an US overseas base.


What about the USA + England + EU  nuclear weapons potential?* That includes France, Germany - tha latter is not an independent country, BTW, it's USA protectorate since World War 2, assisted by France and England that also have military bases in Germany for the last 70 years.

These military forces serve for PEACE, aren't they!?

These civilized militaries kill only aboriginal people, only Afghan, Libyan, Iraqi etc. - or other "proven" to be terrorists!!! Including the millions children and civilians.

Historically the Africans, Indians (both in Asia and in America), Australian, Arabic, Asians, ... had a similar fate.

Well, but "the humanity" as a "race" survives! So these wars do not threaten "our" (THEIRS) survival, they are "ethical" - for democracy, for freedom!!!!

We (they) live in a beautiful world!!!!

...


Message to the "ethical" US and English scientific and engineering pseudo-gurus


Overall, dear USA and English scientists, please, keep your pretentious "expertise" in your narrow sciences. Do keep solving equations or exhausting combinations (one of the aspects of "research") or "solve problems" - these are fields where you are good, but computers also do since they were invented.

You are politically and socially infantile though.

Your "ethics" is "unethical" and insulting to the rest of humanity, which is not yet tamed and "educated" by your ideology, or which is just among the ones who are serving you, as the poor countries which are and would remain poor, as long as they are paid cents for making hundreds of dollars profits for their overseas "ethical" and "civilized" owners.


Your political leaders do not have a clue about HUMAN ethics and HUMAN-relations out of the list of violent and master-slave ones such as:

- Conquer
- Enslave
- Exploit
- Believe that you are "God", you can do whatever you want with the people of the other countries (English "bug" - there's no plural for "народ", folk, as Bulgarians, Germans, Russians; "nation" is different, Bulgarians were Bulgarians without having a nation state, etc.)
- etc.

English-USA political psychology as of the one of any imperial countries like the West European ones (France, Spain and Portugal in the past, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, ...) is suffering  a  hypertrophied feeling of superiority over the "aborigenes" around the world.

Their political international ideology is of the MASTER-and-the-SLAVE.

They are the "masters", the others, according to their believes, are supposed to be the "slaves" and the must obey - see how the TTIP and the related international "contracts" are prepared and going and what's the amount of public discussion, mutual agreements and mutual interest (unlike master-slave unquestionable intrest)).

Asimov's ridiculous, if taken literally, "laws of robotics", are laws of a naive "master" who's inferior than the "slave", but his "ethics", "moral" is even lower.

The even earlier classics "RUR" of Chapek is another illustration of the "ethics" of the masters who treat everybody else as instruments and slaves, including the people who are not from the masters castes.

...


So, English and US scientists - where were you when your imperialistic political leaders enslaved or conquered the other countries or made them dependent and not-free?

Where were you to give your pretentious authority bullshit speeches when the rest of the world needed you???

..

Guys, you, the sick "MASTERS of the world", you are not "the humanity" and you are not the "voice of humanity".


The exploiters of the world, the ones who believe that all nations and people around the world "owe" them to SERVE them, because you they are the "superior" ones or because they are more  "civilized" or something...

The world knows, that actually you just have bigger guns, you are more aggressive and "less-ethical", your political believe is that killing, threatening and robbing the other people is "free" for you, because you are "higher" etc.


Let's pray to God that it's not you who define the "machine ethics" - and that there's not one only "ethics" (i.e. a TOTALITARIAN rule that you set).

Let's hope that you won't define AI's ethics, because in your hands its endangered to be naive, blind, totalitarian, one-directional and egocentrical to your own profit that makes the other people your slaves.


...

* Not that the ENG and US are the only countries/political and military authorities who "threaten the future of humanity" and not that they are the only ones which are dangerous for the "survival of the human kind"... Quotes due to the pretentiousness of these "guru sayings", like coming from a Hollywood "blockbuster" apocalyptic bullshit movie, made like for mentally-retarded viewers or for children below 11 years of age.



...

SourcesBusiness Accelerated  - Meet Amelia, the AI Platform That Could Change the Future of IT: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245827

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

http://www.bing.com/search?q=number+of+US+army+bases&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid=

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22number+of+US+military+bases+in+the+world%22&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid=

"number of US military bases in the world"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/


Words: AGI ethics, AI ethics, ... етика на мислещата машина, мислещи машини, ...


See also from Todor Arnaudov:

"Philosophical and Interdisciplinary Discussion on General Intelligence, AGI and Superintelligence Safety and Human Moral | Cognitive Origins of the Concepts of Human Soul and its (...) ", 20-th of February 2012

http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/02/philosophical-and-interdisciplinary.html

Read More

Where calculations begin, comprehension ceases* - on understanding and superintelligent AGI. Todor's comment in "Strong Artificial Intelligence" at Google+

Comment on the thread: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DuncanMurray_AU/posts/NeuVTZonghR?cfem=1

Todor Arnaudov:

Yes, in too simple situations or ones where the possibilities for action are physically limited, by other unalterable superior forces, a superior intelligence is not obviously useful. A genius in an empty solid room with no doors, no windows, no holes, and no tools wouldn't invent better ways to escape than any normal guy or a cockroach.

Also - yeah, most people, having current biology, don't need technology beyond "baking a cake" (food, drinking, sex, entertaining (legal sensory-taken drugs such as TV), social approval) - people don't really care about technology, and hopefully there were ones who did, otherwise we would have still be dying in the caves.

Average people wouldn't see it as useful for the sake of its cleverness, it's not directly "practical" for an animal (sex, food, ...), it may actually be "anti-practical", because it will show humans that they are dumb,  that "there's no need for human work, since it can be done/synthesized in 0.1 secs by one machine" - and many may go mad about that; many of their recent values will lose their significance and it will become obvious that they are not "magical".

....

I agree that one of the crucial fields for the AGI is biology. There are a few other important fields which will be such in the beginning, but they will do because they are easy and actually will be "anihilated" and "eaten up" immediately, since they are obvious and trivial, they don't even need enormous computing power for today's standards.

.....

It is true also that the "normal" people usually don't need genii (including super smart AGI),  and a genius, as explained by Schopenhauer some 200 years ago is usually useless for his contemporaries, because they can't understand him; they see him as a "crackpot", while a genius could see the other people as a bunch of silly "idiots"  (and would be correct). As of the Matt's example about Einstein as a possible crackpot for the "most people" - do you bear in mind that most people have "learning disabilities", can't learn even basic Calculus, can't learn to draw, to juggle, to play musical instruments, to write a decent novel, can barely learn a foreign language or two - and would talk terribly. They are "retards" in most of the creative fields, if measured honestly and compared to the "talented" ones. Of course Einstein was a genius in theoretical physics, not an ingenius car driver, as Michael Schumacher is an ingenious car driver ("practical real-time physicist with high-speed sensory-motor physical processing, sensory-muscular reaction with a high precision, high-precision real-time trajectory prediction etc.), not an ingenious theoretical physicist (not real time, higher generality data, ...) - there's nothing hard in measuring or recognising this.

......

So why don't we turn the glass on the other side - from Einstein's point of view most of the people are idiots and retards, they can't see and cannot learn what was obvious and trivial to him - while he completely understood and could match their inferior understanding of theoretical physics (of which most people don't even have a clue, above some obvious elements of classical mechanics, without formalization).

.......

If someone is capable to recreate/understand/explain/trace/unveil/expand/repeat... what you can do, if he is capable to emulate you; but you're not capable to emulate him - or if he does it faster, deeper, longer, more sustainable ... - he's better (smarter, more clever, superior, ...) than you in that domain. Of course for low level definition such a natural language one is too general.
 ....

In general, the above is related to the amount of working memory (and access for particular types of sensory motor memory), in a wider sense that the term from the cognitive science, which even in its narrow sense is proven and obviously correlated with the G-factor.

....

 Most people cannot understand at all some topics, can't have a clue and can't learn them (besides to memorize some fragments , terms, concepts, operations etc. by heart that they can recite, perform, apply etc., but cannot continue, extend, optimize), namely because they are unable to put the problem in their mind.

.....

The ones who do not understand see random unconnected fragments and cannot follow the thought process,  besides on the "tracks" that are memorized as sequences to be "replayed". They can't see the links, do not understand the *PHYSICS* (the causality), the "intentionallity", the "philosophy", the idea (in Schopenhauer's sense), and can't create an intuitive view of the domain/question ("intuitive" in the sense of Kant and Schopenhauer ). So that's why they don't see anything meaningful or notice only "miracles", "radical novelty" or other nonsenses (like in art for the people who do not understand it and can't learn it) and the only way for them to pretend to understand such topics is to see some by-effects, some results - which however is not understanding of the topic, but "noticing" a detail, or an "approval" in other simpler and more trivial terms/domains/context); or if they follow straightforward logical chains "if-...then... therefore", possibly long,  but be allowed to forget the past steps, so that the process is simple enough to have small amount of data within the single steps. At the end, they could reach at the conclusion and check that it was "correct", but otherwise they could not see the whole picture at once, and that's not real understanding/comprehension.

....

 As Schopenhauer has said some 200 years ago for humans for such cases: "Where calculations begin, comprehension ceases" - in "On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason", which ineed is one of the true early seminal AGI monographs, among Kant's critiques and all of the Schopenhauer's works. That was some 180 years before the often cited "seminal paper" of "Symbol Grounding" (1990) and 170 before the Searle's pathetic AGI "disproval" with his "Chinese Room experiment" (1980). Humans suffer from the "Chinese Room" or more properly - Schopenhauer's "words instead of thoughts" issue themselves, they did suffer very hardly centuries ago (in the philosophical sophisms). Reciting memories, reordering words without taking care of their meaning and connections, without holding in mind these connections; doing blind calculations, without understanding why, what, for what etc. - that's what most people do anyway. And that is not understanding. In one point of view, even the brightest genius doesn't really understand the technology - he cannot hold the processing inside it in his mind even in the slightest detail, besides extremely tiny or general fragments at a time.

.....

We would not be able to understand thoroughly and "really" the thought process of an AGI that is too much smarter than us, as well. Only the principles or fragmentary and it may look like "magic".
 However as of such "general" understanding of principles, even laymen "understand"/are capable to *say* something about some of the most general and easy to be uttered principles behind computer science - "digital", "1s and 0s", "flip-flops", "has memory cells where you store data", "it does what you tell it to do" etc., while at the same time he may be unable to code even a trivial system of 40 lines of code or understand how a simple adder etc. really works. So one may question whether he does understand what he's talking about, or he's just a "talking machine", an advanced "speech synthesizer".


*"Where calculation begins, comprehension ceases" - a Schopenhauer's thought from "On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason", year 1813 (?+editions). From the English translation at https://archive.org/stream/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft_djvu.txt

Translation in English by William T Fee, 1903.

Pages 90-91:

Also: "Calculation conveys no comprehension ... [it is] of merely practical, not theoretical value ... ... deals exclusively with abstract concepttions of magnitude, whose mutual relations ..."

 To calculate therefore, is not to understand, and,
in itself, calculation conveys no comprehension of things.
Calculation deals exclusively with abstract conceptions of
magnitudes, whose mutual relations it determines. By it
we never attain the slightest comprehension of a physical
process, for this requires intuitive comprehension of
space-relations, by means of which causes take effect.


FIRST CLASS OF OBJECTS FOR THE SUBJECT. 91

Calculations have merely practical, not theoretical, value.
It may even be said that where calculation begins, compre-
hension ceases ; for a brain occupied with numbers is, as
long as it calculates, entirely estranged from the causal
connection in physical processes, being engrossed in purely
abstract, numerical conceptions. The result, however, only
shows us how much, never what.

p.17


And if Neo-Spinozans (Schellingites, Hegelians,
&c.), with whom words are wont to pass for thoughts


p.44

Germans are accustomed to content themselves
with words instead of thoughts. Do we not train them
to it from their cradle? Only look at Hegelianism!
What is it but empty, hollow, nauseous twaddle!

---

Arthur Schopenhauer, 1813 (Bold - T.A.)

Read More

Creative Intelligence will be First Surpassed and Blown Away by the Thinking Machines, not the "low-skill" workers whose jobs require agile and quick physical motion and interactions with human-sized and human-shaped environment | Творческата интелигентност първа ще бъде надмината и издухана от мислещите машини, а не "нискоквалифицирания" труд

Български, виж по-долу: "Творческата интелигентност" първа ще бъде надмината и издухана от мислещите машини, а не "нискоквалифицирания" труд, който изисква пъргавина, сръчност и бързи движения и взаимодействия в човешка среда, сред други хора

First Surpassed and Blown Away by the Thinking Machines, not the "low-skill" workers whose jobs require agile and quick physical motion and interactions with human-sized and human-shaped environment

A comment of mine regarding an article:... Posted to AGIRI AGI list with some additional comments.

Let me challenge this claim:

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).

"Machines on the march threaten almost half of modern jobs." September 23rd, 2013.http://phys.org/news/2013-09-machines-threaten-modern-jobs.html
Sep 23, 2013 by Carl Frey & Michael Osborne, The Conversation

"
Careers at low risk of computerisation are generally those that require knowledge of human heuristics and specialist occupations involving the development of novel ideas and artifacts. Most management, business, and finance occupations, which are intensive in generalist tasks requiring social intelligence, are still largely confined to the low-risk category. The same is true of most occupations in education and healthcare, as well as arts and media jobs.

...Engineering and science occupations are also less susceptible to the phenomenon, largely due to the high degree of creative intelligence they require. It is, however, possible that computers will fully substitute for workers in these occupations over the long-run.

This means that as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will need to train in tasks that are less susceptible to computerisation - that is, tasks requiring creative and social intelligence...."

Todor Arnaudov:

It could be the opposite in many cases, but it is easy to understand the "bourgeois" believe in their own superiority - I mean the authors of the article as well as the other "intellectual workers". Most people have the multi-domain blindness issue - I've talked about that in previous messages, and have started a big work on it (a work on creativity, as an answer to one other paper, but this work was frozen in the middle an year ago and is not published).

The "creative intelligence" is hard for the humans, especially hard for average people and average researchers, engineers or whatever to understand and explain.

They don't understand their own intentions, "schema", behavior, reasons, they don't know why they do or choose precisely what they did etc., can't remember and analyze that information well enough.

And the overall problem is not that versatile general intelligence is so complex, it is that the humans are too dumb to fit it in their tiny "RAM".

The low-skill workers which are agile and fit in human environment (for example waiters) are harder to get replaced by humanoid robots - those robots are not yet mass produced and for a long time will be more expensive and harder to build than to hire a human. Also humans like human waiters, especially attractive women.

For the intellectual jobs - it's much easier to pick a computer, run the appropriate software or connect it to the service,
and get it thinking - you already have decent cameras, microphones and many sensors even in smartphones.

There are tens of billions of already available computers - or much more? - and many of them in my estimates are fast enough even now, and even 5 or 10 years ago, for many "highly intellectual" human-level and super-human level activities.

Actually computers were super humans for many decades - from the beginning, but that's another topic.


The bottom line is that the "white collars" are more endangered in current-time economy.
Perhaps that kind of economy could hardly survive the AGI revolution.

I guess it may turn inside-out  upside down for a while - the low-skill workers could get higher pay, because intellectual activities will be done in 1 ms for free... ;)

We, the smart guys (the smart asses, see "Super Smartasses" the graphical series ) wouldn't be needed by anyone... Not that we are needed now. :))

Maybe the change won't be that big. :D

---

=== Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ===

.... Twenkid Research: http://research.twenkid.com

.... Author of the world's first University courses in AGI (2010, 2011): http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/universal-artificial-intelligence.html

.... Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com
|

Творческата интелигентност първа ще бъде надмината и издухана от мислещите машини, а не "нискоквалифицирания" труд, който изисква пъргавина, сръчност и бързи движения и взаимодействия в човешка среда, сред други хора


Бих оспорил твърденията от тази статия:

Цитат от статия от "The Conversation": "Настъпващите машини заплашват почти половината от съврменните работни места" - http://phys.org/news/2013-09-machines-threaten-modern-jobs.html
Sep 23, 2013 от Карл Фрай и Майкъл Осборн, The Conversation


Работните места с нисък риск от компютризация и автоматизация като цяло са тези, които изискват знания за човешки евристики и са свързани с измисляне и разработване на нови неща.

Повечето професии свързани с мениджмънт, бизнес управление, финанси, в които се извършват много разнообразни задачи, изискващи социална интелигентност са в категорията, за която се смята, че е с нисък риск. Същото се отнася и за повечето професии в образованието, здравеопазването, изкуствата и медиите.

Инженерните длъжности и научната работа също са по-малко заплашени от този феномен, най-вече заради високата степен на творчески ум, която изискват. В дългосрочен план обаче е възможно компютрите напълно да заместят служителите и на тези длъжности.

Това значи, че с напредването на технологиите, нискоквалифицираните рабортници ще трябва да се преквалифицират в професии, които са по-малко податливи на компютризация - тези, които изискват творчество и социални умения..."    

Превод: авторът  

Тодор "Тош" Арнаудов:

Всъщност според мен по-скоро ще се случи обратното.

Разбираема е вярата в превъзходството на авторите на статията и на другите "интелектуални работници" над по-нискоквалифицираните, но и авторите страдат от т.нар. интердисциплинарна слепота, която ги кара да смятат, че интелектуалните професии са едва ли не вълшебни и необясними, та затова трудно се поддавали на автоматизация.

Говорил съм много по този въпрос в предишни съобщения, и бях започнал голям труд в който се разглеждат някои аспекти от проблема.*

Творчеството, създаването, е сложно и трудо за разбиране и обяснение от хората, особено за средностатистическите хора, нормалните учени, инженери и пр.

Та те не схващат собствените си намерения, модели, поведение, основания, причини да вършат каквото вършат, защо са избрали или направили точно това, което са направили и пр., не могат да го запомнят и да анализират тази информация достатъчно добре.

Затова и главният проблем при създаването на универсален изкуствен разум не е, че интелигентността е толкова сложна. Проблемът е, че хората са твърде "тъпи", за да го съберат в своята миниатюрна "оперативна памет"... (Виж за "Работна памет", Working Memory capacity correlates with General Intelligence ... 

Нискоквалифицираните работници, които са пъргави и са създадени от природата да се вместват в човешка среда - средата е създадена да е подходяща за тях - например сервитьори, ще се заместят по-трудно от хуманоидни роботи.

Такива роботи все още не се произвеждат масово и още много години няма как да бъдат произведени в големи количества, ще бъдат прекалено скъпи и трудни за производство, много по-изгодно и лесно е да наемеш хора - те са навсякъде. Също така, хората най-вероятно ще предпочитат хора за сервитьори, особено ако са привлекателни жени.

За умствения труд е и ще бъде обратното - много по-лесно е да хванеш някакъв компютър за ушите, да пуснеш подходящия софтуер или да го свържеш към услугата през мрежата и вече ще си имаш мислеща машина. Вече си имаш и прилични камери, микрофони и много сензори дори в смартфоните.

Има десетки милиарди? вече достъпни компютри навсякъде около нас (със "сериозни" процесори) - и по мои сметки много от тях са достатъчно бързи сега, били са достатъчно бързи и преди 5 и преди 10 години, за много от "високо интелектуални" занимания на човешко и свръхчовешко ниво.

Всъщност компютрите са си свръхчовешки от много десетилетия, от самото начало, но това е друга тема.

"Белите якички" са по-застрашени в сегашната икономика - тя естествено трудно би оцеляла революцията на универсалните мислещи машини, а ще има и отпор от въпросните "застрашени", очаквам изкуствени абсурдни закони и маймунджулъци от "най-високоразвитото късче материя във Вселената" (друг път).

Предполагам, че икономиката може да се преобърна за известно време - нискоквалифицираните работници може да взимат по-висока заплата, защото интелектуалните занимания ще се вършат за 1 милисекунда и безплатно... ;) Разбира се, ако тези по-върховете на властта, които контроират онези с оръжията, не попречат това да се случи, защото може да се заклати собствения им стол.

Ние, умниците (виж "Супер умници - графичен сериал  ) ще станем ненужни... Не че и сега сме особено нужни :)), така че в това отношение промяната може би няма да е чак толкова голяма... :D

...
* Труд относно творчеството, като отговор на една статия, в която имаше съвпадения с мои по-стари идеи, бях я започнал в края на миналата година, но беше замразена наполовина недовършена и не е публикувана).


* EDITS: fixed has - have, job - jobs, (to) analyse -> analyze; good enough - well enough

Read More

Jürgen Schmidhuber Talk on Ted, Creative Machines and the Omega Point | Computer Vision, 3D-reconstruction from 2D

Juergen Schmidhuber - TEDxLausanne - When creative machines overtake man



Funny as usual. :)

One critics I've got on the computers who will reach human brain computing power - brain power calculations are unreliable and not really comparable, and ironically brain computing power is specialized and probably some of the operations are redundant or unnecessary., A computer having power to simulate a brain is much more flexible and powerful. I've discussed on these issues on the blog and the AGI list. (Should do the digest...)

Computer vision problems of 3D-reconstruction from images and image and video processing, done with GPUs give some suggestions on supposed required computing power in digital terms, but human brain puts a lot of "empty cycles" before reaching to such capabilities, even while having actuators which are usually lacking yet in machines - if the agent is capable to manipulate the position of the object, the "cameras" and the focus predictably and slowly, as babies can do with their eyes, heads and body, it's far easier to detect and scale perspective laws etc.

And it takes many months to get to 3D-vision and to increase resolution and develop 3D-reconstruction in the human brain. That adds ~86400 fold per day and 31,536,000 "cycles" per year.

What computing power is needed?

I don't think you need millions of the most powerful GPUs and CPUs at the moment to beat human vision, we'll beat it pretty soon, a lot of the higher level intelligence in my estimation is very low at its complexity (behavior, decision making, language at the grammar/vocabulary levels) and would need a tiny amount of MIPS, FLOPS and memory. It's the lowest levels which require vast computing power - 3D-reconstruction from 2D one or many static or motion camera sources, transformations, rotations, trajectories computations etc., and those problems are practically being solved and implemented.

See for example:

Marc Pollefeys - ZURICH.MINDS



My estimations supercomputers were fast enough since many years, it's just the algorithms which are lacking yet.


*Thanks to Sasho for the link to the Juergen's presentation!


Words, Tags: Computer vision, 3D-reconstruction, 3D-graphics, computational creativity, Juergen Schmidhuber, Jürgen, Talks, Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, Futurology, Brain, Analysis, GPU, GPGPU, CPUs, computing power, supercomputers, 3D-models

Read More