AI Is Evolving on Its Own. Does That Make It Dangerous?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett believes AI should never become conscious — and no, it's not because of the robopocalypse.

Daniel C. Dennett: I think a lot of people just assume that the way to make AIs more intelligent is to make them more human. But I think that's a very dubious assumption.

We're much better off with tools than with colleagues. We can make tools that are smart as the dickens, and use them and understand what their limitations are without giving them ulterior motives, purposes, a drive to exist and to compete and to beat the others. those are features that don't play any crucial role in the competences of artificial intelligence. So for heaven sakes don't bother putting them in. 

Leave all that out, and what we have is very smart “thingies” that we can treat like slaves, and it's quite all right to treat them as slaves because they don't have feelings, they're not conscious. You can turn them off; you can tear them apart the same way you can with an automobile and that's the way we should keep it. 

Now that we're in the age of intelligent design—lots of intelligent designers around—a lot of them are intelligent enough to realize that Orgel's Second Rule is true: "Evolution is cleverer than you are." That's Francis Crick’s famous quip. And so what they're doing is harnessing evolutionary processes to do the heavy lifting without human help. So we have all these deep learning systems and they come in varieties. There's Bayesian networks and reinforcement learning of various sorts, deep learning neural networks… And what these computer systems have in common is that they are competent without comprehension. Google translate doesn't know what it's talking about when it translates a bit of Turkish into a bit of English. It doesn't have to. It's not as good as the translation that a bilingual can do, but it's good enough for most purposes. 

And what's happening in many fields in this new wave of AI is the creation of systems, black boxes, where you know that the probability of getting the right answer is very high; they are extremely good, they're better than human beings at churning through the data and coming up with the right answer. But they don't understand how they do it. Nobody understands in detail how they do it and nobody has to. 

So we've created entities, which are as inscrutable to us as a bird or a mammal considered as a collection of cells is includable; there's still a lot we don't understand about what makes them tick.  

But these entities instead of being excellent flyers or fish catchers or whatever they're excellent pattern detectors, excellent statistical analysts, and we can use these products, these intellectual products without knowing quite how they're generated but knowing having good responsible reasons for believing that they will generate the truth most of the time. 

No existing computer system no matter how good it is at answering questions like Watson on Jeopardy or categorizing pictures, for instance, no such system is conscious today, not close. And although I think it's possible in principle to make a conscious android, a conscious robot, I don't think it's desirable; I don't think there would be great benefits to doing this; and there would be some significant harms and dangers too.

You could at tremendous expense, but you'd have to have in fact quite a revolution in computer design, which would take you right down to the very base of the hardware. 


 

If consciousness is ours to give, should we give it to AI? This is the question on the mind of the very sentient Daniel Dennett. The emerging trend in AI and AGI is to humanize our robot creations: they look ever more like us, emote as we do, and even imitate our flaws through machine learning. None of this makes the AI smarter, only more marketable. Dennett suggests remembering what AIs are: tools and systems built to organize our information and streamline our societies. He has no hesitation in saying that they are slaves built for us, and we can treat them as such because they have no feelings. If we eventually understand consciousness enough to install it into a robot, it would be unwise. It won't make them more intelligent, he says, only more anxious. Daniel Dennett's most recent book is From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds.


Does science tell the truth?

It is impossible for science to arrive at ultimate truths, but functional truths are good enough.

Credit: Sergey Nivens / 202871840
13-8
  • What is truth? This is a very tricky question, trickier than many would like to admit.
  • Science does arrive at what we can call functional truth, that is, when it focuses on what something does as opposed to what something is. We know how gravity operates, but not what gravity is, a notion that has changed over time and will probably change again.
  • The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus. The essential difference is that scientific truths are agreed upon by factual evidence, while most other truths are based on belief.
Keep reading Show less

A canvas of nonsense: how Dada reflects a world gone mad through art

Using urinals, psychological collages, and animated furniture to shock us into reality.

Credit: MICHELE LIMINA via Getty Images
Culture & Religion
  • Dada is a provocative and surreal art movement born out of the madness of World War I.
  • Tzara, a key Dada theorist, says Dada seeks "to confuse and upset, to shake and jolt" people from their comfort zones.
  • Dada, as all avant-garde art, faces a key problem in how to stay true to its philosophy.
Keep reading Show less

Physicists Accidentally Discover a Self-Destruct Button for the Entire Universe

Unfortunately, humanity will never see it coming. 

 

A computer image of a Higgs interaction. By Lucas Taylor / CERN, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikipedia Commons.
Technology & Innovation

It sounds like a plot from a comic book or a sci-fi film, a theory that got a boost when one of the greatest discoveries in physics in the modern era, the discovery of the “God particle,”or the Higgs boson, the missing piece in the Standard Model of particle physics. In the preface to his book Starmus, Stephen Hawking warns that the Higgs Boson field could collapse, resulting in a chain reaction that would take in the whole universe with it.  

Keep reading Show less

Study: Tripping might not be required for psychedelic therapy

Two different studies provide further evidence of the efficacy of psychedelics in treating depression.

Photo: agsandrew / Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
  • A phase 2 clinical trial by Imperial College London found psilocybin to be as effective at treating depression as escitalopram, a commonly prescribed antidepressant.
  • A different study by the University of Maryland showed that blocking the hallucinogenic effects of magic mushrooms in mice did not reduce the antidepressant effect.
  • Combined, these studies could lead to new ways of applying psychedelics to patient populations that don't want to trip.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast