Using the Programme Guide of the World
Science Fiction Convention in Helsinki Finland in August 2017 (to which I will
be unable to go (until I retire from education)), I will jump off, jump on,
rail against, and shamelessly agree with the BRIEF DESCRIPTION given in the pdf
copy of the Programme Guide. The link is provided below…
What would a
superintelligence, artificial or natural, be like? Would it be able to solve
the same problems we can but quicker, or would it look on the world in a
completely different way? What would the consequences be if we shared the world
with one, or more than one? Do we want to build something smarter than we are?
But do we have to [in order] to survive?
Tom Crosshill: SF,
F, and YA Contemporary author
Benjamin C.
Kinney: Escape Pod Assistant Editor as well as neuroscientist and writer
Mikko Rauhala: short
story author in Finland, MS in Computer Science/Intelligent Systems, transhumanist,
singularitarian, Research Benefactor for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute,
information society civil rights activist, member of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, vegan
Lettie Prell: Science
fiction and fantasy writer
Why does everyone
make the assumption that super smart equals Savior Of All Mankind?
That seems to be
the current flow in the speculative fiction world. Gone are the explorations of
the dark side of AI (Starting HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey – a list of movies
for your deliberation – https://www.wired.com/2009/01/top-10-evil-com/),
hello, “I Sing the Body Singularity!” and features people consistently hoping
that they’ll be around for the event.
In case you don’t
know what the Singularity is, the brief definition: “the hypothesis that the
invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway
technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.”
Jon von Neumann, Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, Eric Horvitz, and many other SF
writers are typically proponents of superintelligence; major detractors include
Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk as well as the works of Frank Herbert (the
rebellion against AIs was called the Butlerian Jihad) and both incarnations of
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.
Even so, while the
detractors assume malicious intent of the superintelligence, I wonder if it
might end up less dramatic than that.
In the school I
work at, I’ve known incredibly intelligent young adults who are poised to make
their mark on society in a powerful way – one in computers, one in biophysics, another
in medicine, one even in particle physics. I have also known incredibly
intelligent young adults who were poised to make their mark on society and who
failed spectacularly.
Why do both the
proponents and detractors of AI believe in an intrinsic “good/bad” or good vs
evil orientation. What if the Singularity produces both spectacular advances –
and spectacular failures? Are we prepared for that?
I highly doubt it.
We already have trouble following metaphysical gods. Most speculative fiction
writers will instantaneously point out the number of murderers who thought they
were hearing “God’s Voice” as he directed them to murder abortion rights
advocates or even rock-and-roll singers. I have yet to read a story in which a
speculative fiction admits to the entire history of both the old Soviet Union
and present-day China (as well as several other countries) are officially
atheist and summarily order the slaughter of Tibetan monks, underground
Christians, Nazi Germany (while technically Lutheran…which we also never
mention) ordered the extermination of Jews, jailing of devout Muslims...
What makes people
believe that an artificial intelligence will be any better at “leading Humanity”
than a metaphysical God? There will, of course, be “believers”. I had an odd
thought while writing this that among the proponents of AI and
superintelligence, there may be some who are doing the same thing many
Americans do, particularly those in the 1950s like teen fiction SF writer
Robert A. Heinlein who possibly went along with the prevailing religious mores
of the dominant society in order to get published. What if individuals
convinced of the coming superintelligence wrought apocalypse of all “normal
Humans”, make certain that their “approval” of the Singularity is
well-documented so that our new root overlords or superintelligent masters
leave them alone? Perhaps the True Believers will be coopted by the
superintelligence(s) to, you know, “run stuff” for them, the SI putting them in
charge of the everyday operation of the world.
Nevertheless, the problem is that we constantly second-guess whoever is "over" us -- presidents, popes, generals, and head football coaches -- are criticized by the ones being led (or entertained). Once a superintelligence evolves, what's to keep all the scifi typed from bemoaning the job they're doing? What's to keep a superintelligence from making super mistakes?
Nothing.
Nevertheless, the problem is that we constantly second-guess whoever is "over" us -- presidents, popes, generals, and head football coaches -- are criticized by the ones being led (or entertained). Once a superintelligence evolves, what's to keep all the scifi typed from bemoaning the job they're doing? What's to keep a superintelligence from making super mistakes?
Nothing.
Those cheerleading for superintelligence today might get exactly that. They may be pushing for it in fact. Of course, those
operating at that level might be treading thin ice. Collaborators fare poorly
in Human society and superintelligence won’t have anything BUT us to model itself/themselves
after initially taking over the world.
So…superintelligence
– something to cultivate or inhibit?
If we choose to
inhibit it however, well, we all know what happens as soon as you tell people
they “can’t do that”…
Resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_fiction,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/are-blade-runners-replicants-human-descartes-and-locke-have-some-thoughts-180965097/,
https://freedomhouse.org/report/china-religious-freedom,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism,
No comments:
Post a Comment