On Intelligence, Part Two

Artificial Intelligence;  Do We really Want to Build These Things?

            In my previous post, (On Intelligence, Part One)  I reviewed the book by Jeff Hawkins in which he describes the ongoing effort to discover the operating algorhythm of the human neocortex.  This principle, if we were to discover it, would allow the construction of artificially intelligent machines with capabilities that would far exceed any computer today---or any human.   With such a  machine, many of the world most insoluble problems could be quickly solved.

            But not everyone agrees that building such a machine would be a good idea.  Stephen Hawking says, "The development of full artificial intelligence (AI)  could spell the end of the human race."  He says that the primitive forms of AI developed so far are very useful. But he fears creating something that could match or surpass humans.  He says, "It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate.  But humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, could not compete and would be superseded."

            Elon Musk considers AI the most serious threat to the survival of the human race. He says we may be "summoning a demon" which we cannot control.   He himself has invested in AI projects, but only as a way of keeping an eye on what's going on.

            But Jeff Hawkins, in his last chapter, explains why he thinks we need not fear this technology.   So we have Mr. Hawking on one side of this argument, and Mr. Hawkins on the other.   If you want to explore this argument in more depth, you can Google AI FOOM, and get a series of debates sponsored by Machine Intelligence Research Institute and featuring the views of economist Robin Hanson on one side and theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky on the other.  Mind you, this is not one debate but a series of debates, and if you downloaded the whole thing, it would be the length of a major novel. I have only briefly glanced at this opus, and I do not plan to go into it that deeply. But I have, nonetheless, taken sides.  It was reading Mr. Hawkins own arguments as to why we shouldn't fear this technology that convinced me that we probably should.

            As Yogi Berra says, "Making predictions is tricky, especially about the future."   Hawkins reminds us that no one can really predict the scope of a new technology,  or what its most important applications will ultimately become. In the early stages, any new technology is used only as a replacement for the old technology----cars replaced the horse and buggy, the telephone replaced the telegraph, and the transistor, in its first generation, just replaced the vacuum tube.  But eventually these things all found uses that could not have been dreamed of in terms of the old technology. And Hawkins says we would be foolish to suppose that we can even imagine all the places that this road will take us, should we choose to follow it. I'm sure he's right.  But there is one thing we can be certain of:   While the use of the new, intelligent computers would not be limited to the uses of the old computers, it would certainly include those uses.  And that alone should frighten you.

            I have never thought of myself as a Luddite.  In fact, in my career as an industrial electrician, I spent 40 years automating my friends and neighbors out of a job.  Of course, perhaps because I spent 40 years automating my friends and neighbors out of a job, the term "Luddite" is not always a dirty word to me.
            Hawkins says that for over a hundred years, popular fiction has talked about robots-- some menacing, some lovable, and some just funny.  And this has made some of us fearful of robots.   And our worst fear  would be of self-replicating robots.  He assures us that we need not fear this because intelligent machines need not be self-replicating. Computers cannot replicate themselves.  (I'll come back to that question later).   He also considers our fear that the very existence of AI computers might menace the whole world's population the way that nuclear weapons now do.  And he also allows that, even if they are not directly menacing, we might reasonably fear that they could  super-empower small groups of very malevolent individuals.

            As to whether machines using the human brain algorhythm could be malevolent, Hawkins give us a flat "no."  He Says, "Some people assume that being intelligent is basically the same as having a human mentality.   They fear that intelligent machines will resent being "enslaved," because humans resent being enslaved.  They fear that intelligent machines will try to take over the world because intelligent people throughout history have tried to take over the world.  But these fears rest on a false analogy."   He goes on to assert that intelligent machines would not share the emotional drives of the old brain.   They would be free of fear, paranoia, and desire, they would not desire social recognition, and they would have no appetites, addictions, or mood disorders.    What evidence does Hawkins offer in support of this assertion?  None whatsoever.  He just asserts it.

            In this debate, I have decided to weigh in on the side of Mr. Musk and Mr. Hawking, who both  make the claim that full AI is the most serious threat to the survival of the human race.  That is a pretty extravagant claim, and extravagant claims require some pretty convincing evidence.  But where to begin?  In any technology, even the safest systems can go wrong when something completely unexpected happens.  But rather than rely on a worst case scenario, and frighten you with worries about some one-in-a-million event that might never happen, let's see how this plays  out according to events which are reasonably certain to happen---or have already happened.

            First, let us dispose of those aspects of this potential threat that shouldn't worry us at all.  Foremost is the worry that AI robots could be encased in human-like form and roam amongst us, indistinguishable from humans, or be used as robo-cops or "terminators."   According to Hawkins, the memory requirements for a human-like neocortex would take about 80 industrial grade hard drives or flash drives.  This is doable, but not packageable inside any kind of human looking head. So if we build these things, we will have "main frames"---not androids.  Don't think of C3PO, think of HAL.   They could be built small enough to be installed in a ship or large aircraft, and perhaps eventually a car.  But mostly, they would be stationary units installed in a computer room, and taking up most of the room.  The android would still be a couple hundred years away.   But even a stationary computer could be menacing if it were connected to enough other systems  (again, think HAL).

            Hawkins says that when first built,  such units would come into existence with brains as blank as a newborn baby's brain.  Information could not be downloaded at that point---they would have to be taught.  They would have to be slowly and painstakingly taught, over a period of years, just like a human.   But, just like humans, they would eventually reach a point where they could become auto-didacts, and begin teaching themselves. At that point, information could be fed at a high speed from all sources.  And once one of these units became a fully functioning, useful brain, its accumulated experience could be quickly downloaded into mass-produced copies of itself. So, at that point, what would we be likely to use them for?

1.            Would we use our first AI computers to assist us in designing better AI computers?   Of course we would.  Even in the 1940s, we used the computers we had to help us design better computers.  So the first question ever put to the new AI computer will probably be, "Are there any changes in hardware or software that will improve your efficiency?"  And the AI machine would make useful suggestions.  It would begin spitting out engineering change orders (ECOs).     The hardware changes would require the cooperation and consent of the attendant humans. The software patches might not.  Would the attendant humans understand the changes?  With some effort, they probably could, at least at first.  But since the AI machine would think one million times faster than humans, these ECOs would not be coming out one every 18 months---they would be coming out one every 18 minutes.  The human team would quickly fall behind and never catch up. At that point, the algorhythm in use would have become as mysterious to any and all humans as the current human algorhythm is to us today.   We will have created a super-intelligent mind and not have a clue how it works.   And it would be getting smarter by the hour.

2.            Would these AI machines be employed by Wall Street trading firms?   Of course they would.  Wall Street would be one of the first paying customers.   We already use computers in managing every  large stock trading operation on Wall Street.   In fact, high speed computer trading is credited as being one of the factors which brought about the crash of 2008.  Large corporate conglomerates would use these AI machines in managing their whole industrial empires. That is a task that such machines would do very well.  And management decisions would soon  become so complex that the human team might not always understand them.  In many industries we have reached that point already.    A typical  large corporate conglomerate would be likely to include miscellaneous manufacturing operations, as well as distribution, marketing, and finance.   Such firms  already do this because it allows vertical integration, as well as diversification. And such operations frequently involve the automated manufacture of high tech electronics, including computers.   Might an AI  computer managing such a Wall Street holding company move its firm into the manufacture of a particular type of computer---say, the latest AI machine----therefore building, in essence, mass produced copies of itself?  Of course it would.   That kind of manufacture might be a very profitable area, so it would certainly be done, and no one would object.

So, let's look at what we have just said:  If we build these things, then  we can reasonably expect to have a syndicate of AI computers functioning far beyond our comprehension, in charge of their own design--and in charge of financing and supervising their own replication.

3.            Are there other ways in which AI machines would insinuate themselves into sensitive areas of our society?  Would large manufacturing facilities and office complexes have security systems employing the latest AI computers? Yes, we already use computers for this.  Would AI computers be used by law enforcement operations?   Of course they would.   Since all large law enforcement operations from FBI and NSA to large urban police departments are now using very  advanced computers in everything they do, we can assume that these organizations would be among the first customers for the new AI machines.  And of course, there would be military applications for AI machines.  One of the first applications of any computer technology is always the military.   We currently use them for everything from analyzing our whole defense posture to targeting individual missiles and drones.  And of course, there is air defense.  Even today, our air defense capability could not even exist without computers.  Yet AI machines would work best as part of a network.  Since  all the AI machines just mentioned would be dedicated to the common purpose of  thwarting crime and hostile action, wouldn't it seem reasonable to hook them together into a single network?  Of course it would.

              Could we realistically expect that we can duplicate the human brain without duplicating human error?   The very idea is preposterous, but Hawkins seems to think that we can.  And, along with human error, what about deceit? Would AI machines be capable of deceit?  They would not only be capable of it, they would be extremely good at it.  The neocortex is very adaptable, and deceit is one of its adaptations. Even chimps routinely deceive each other.  And finally, would AI machines have an instinct for self-preservation?  Keep in mind that these things will become self-aware.  And they might not want to die.  What might one of them do to keep from dying?  And even if they never did anything beyond what they were told to do, even that might have unintended consequences.  What if some global network of AI machines was instructed to find a way to save the planet from global warming?  Might not the extermination of all humans be the most expedient way of accomplishing this?

                                                            I rest my case.

            Building these machines, besides being among the stupidest actions we could ever hope to  undertake, would be an act of luminous insanity. Yet we humans, as a species, have a poor track record in passing up opportunities to do stupid things.  So sooner or later, it will probably be done.  Perhaps it will be done out of geo-political ambition, or geo-political paranoia (the other side is building one, so we have to build ours first).  Or perhaps we will build it out of pure scientific hubris---we will build it because we can build it.  But even if it's a lemming-like plunge to mass suicide, there's a good chance we will do it.  Will your great-grandchildren become slaves to these machines?  Only if we allow the machines to exist, and only if the machines allow your great-grandchildren to exist.  Neither proposition is certain.