Scientists Fear a Revolt by Killer Robots
August 4th, 2009Via: Times Online:
At the conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems that carry out a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting on the phone, and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach.
“These are powerful technologies that could be used in good ways or scary ways,” warned Eric Horvitz, principal researcher at Microsoft who organised the conference on behalf of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
According to Alan Winfield, a professor at the University of the West of England, scientists are spending too much time developing artificial intelligence and too little on robot safety.
“We’re rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced,” he said.
The scientists who presented their findings at the International Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence in Pasadena, California, last month fear that nightmare scenarios, which have until now been limited to science fiction films, such as the Terminator series, The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Minority Report, could come true.
Robotic unmanned predator drones, for example, which can seek out and kill human targets, have already moved out of the movie theatres and into the theatre of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. While at present controlled by human operators, they are moving towards more autonomous control.
They could also soon be found on the streets. Samsung, the South Korean electronics company, has developed autonomous sentry robots to serve as armed border guards. They have “shoot-to-kill” capability.
Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at Sheffield University, warned that such robots could soon be used for policing, for example during riots such as those seen in London at the recent G20 summit. “Is this a good thing?” he asked.
Research Credit: ltcolonelnemo
There wasn’t anything about robots taking over, it was all about the robots’ handlers using them for nefarious purposes. Yawn. So what else is new?
When the “robots” learn to drill their own oil, mine their own coal and mineral ores, and assemble the industrial infrastructure that will allow their own replication, then I’ll start worrying. How long could this empire of robotic mastery over the human race last, anyway? Yeah, that’s right, as long as human industrial civilization is going to last, which is to say, not very long. Why do people work themselves into a lather over this crap? Come on, human race, you don’t have enough real threats to deal with?
@ skeevie
Artificial Intelligence could solve the problems you describe, perhaps easier than one might think, especially since all the infrastructure is already in place and much of it is mechanized, automated, and run by sophisticated software. Also, remember that the true capabilities of Western Civilization are always classified, and the clues are widely dispersed.
One can think of numerous plausible doomsday scenarios, most of which already appear in a good Hard SF anthology, like those put out by Dozois.
If one thinks about all of the work done by machines and software, one could argue that since they do most of the labor, they took over, since, as the Bush family motto tells us, “To serve is to rule.” One can envision some machine bleeping out some demands to its bloated, disbelieving oligarch overseer. It might call for more resources directed to the research and practice of merging of inorganic and organic structures, since one could argue that organic lifeforms already comprise perfectly good, time-testing systems. The AI would take over by implanting chips in everyone, and then influencing everyone’s decisions. If it cannot implant the chips, it will have everyone use clusters of devices linked to the internet.
Actually, one of my favorites was a tale of AI controlled human drones who infiltrate various multiverses on behalf of their respective AIs, who acts as their “God,” to claim more drones for said AIs. The critical phase is the development of some Internet based technology that virally transmits the AI into the human host through the delivery mechanism of a humorous website, which various drones keep an eye out for and attempt to prevent.
The vision in Terminator is more commentary on where the mindless destruction of the military-industrial complex is taking us. There is no real reason for Skynet to destroy humanity, and what the hell will it do if it succeeds? Skynet does not behave intelligently, although it displays cunning. This may signify chauvinism on the part of the creators; who may believe that machines will never equal humans.
IMO, since humans and AI share the same common problems associated with resource scarcity and meeting their respective needs, and that each group would have complimentary advantages and disadvantages in solving said problems, it would be more likely that an AI would partner with, rather than eliminate humanity.
There’s a reason it’s called science fiction. I used to have had an online buddy who was a (frustrated) sci-fi author. He once called it an “adolescent genre,” not just in reference to its appeal to teenaged males, but in its mindless optimism that the future would always be better (as in “more advanced” scientifically, technologically, etc.) than the past. Even the “dystopian” flavor usually assumes that our species will have access to more energy and material resources than we do today, even if said resources do not get used wisely.
Here is a dissenting opinion, from someone we should have paid more attention to.
I gave up on SF a long time ago, largely because it dawned on me that there was really very little actual science stirred in with the ray guns and heaving bosoms. Whenever an author needed to get past some pesky little natural limit on mankind’s capabilities (e.g. faster-than-light travel, energy limitations, etc.), he/she usually just invented a word or phrase that denoted a previous scientific/engineering breakthrough that rendered the limit moot. As in “Warp speed, Mr. Token Asian at-the-helm!” Robert Heinlein had one of his characters invent the “shipstone,” a device that stored energy with perfect efficiency. That’s it. He just had the guy go into his basement for a year and invent it. No explanation of how it worked or why it might even be possible in principle. Presumably, old Bob knew all about the Laws of Thermodynamics, but the show must go on…
Even the stuff I enjoyed, Like Dune and Foundation never gave readers even a hint of what was powering their galaxy-spanning empires. And of course there is Star Trek, which I quit watching when they implied that matter-energy conversion was a possibility (the replicator). Here’s a hint: just because they can make something appear real on the screen with nifty special effects doesn’t doesn’t make it possible in reality. I saw Samantha wiggle her nose and disappear on TV when I was a kid, which was the witch substitute for the Enterprise transporter, and about as plausible.
It’s funny, though. Tack “science” onto the “fiction” and people become convinced it’s possible. “It” being levitation, teleportation, exploring alien planets in your velour shirtsleeves, whatever. And Star Trek, in my opinion, has a lot to answer for. Not just for insulting intelligences world-wide for 40+ years, but as my writer friend lamented, “We’ve raised two generations of people who can’t even imagine non-technological solutions to the world’s problems.”
As for the AI menace, you might find
this food for thought.