Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.8.6 |
→Coherent extrapolated volition: Adding main hatnote |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2023}}
{{Artificial intelligence|Philosophy}}
'''Friendly artificial intelligence''' (
== Etymology and usage ==
[[File:Eliezer Yudkowsky, Stanford 2006 (square crop).jpg|thumb|[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], AI researcher and creator of the term
The term was coined by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]],<ref>{{cite book|last1=Tegmark|first1=Max|title=Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality|date=2014|isbn=9780307744258|edition=First|chapter=Life, Our Universe and Everything|quote=Its owner may cede control to what Eliezer Yudkowsky terms a "Friendly AI,"...|title-link=Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing }}</ref> who is best known for popularizing the idea,<ref name="aima">{{cite book |last1=Russell |first1=Stuart |author1-link=Stuart J. Russell |last2=Norvig |first2=Peter |author2-link=Peter Norvig |date=2009 |title=Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=978-0-13-604259-4|title-link=Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Leighton |first=Jonathan |date=2011 |title=The Battle for Compassion: Ethics in an Apathetic Universe |publisher=Algora |isbn=978-0-87586-870-7}}</ref> to discuss [[superintelligence|superintelligent]] artificial agents that reliably implement human values. [[Stuart J. Russell]] and [[Peter Norvig]]'s leading [[artificial intelligence]] textbook, ''[[Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach]]'', describes the idea:<ref name="aima" />
<blockquote>Yudkowsky (2008) goes into more detail about how to design a '''Friendly AI'''. He asserts that friendliness (a desire not to harm humans) should be designed in from the start, but that the designers should recognize both that their own designs may be flawed, and that the robot will learn and evolve over time. Thus the challenge is one of mechanism design—to define a mechanism for evolving AI systems under a system of checks and balances, and to give the systems utility functions that will remain friendly in the face of such changes.</blockquote>
== Risks of unfriendly AI ==
{{
The roots of concern about artificial intelligence are very old. Kevin LaGrandeur showed that the dangers specific to AI can be seen in ancient literature concerning artificial humanoid servants such as the [[golem]], or the proto-robots of [[Gerbert of Aurillac]] and [[Roger Bacon]]. In those stories, the extreme intelligence and power of these humanoid creations clash with their status as slaves (which by nature are seen as sub-human), and cause disastrous conflict.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.academia.edu/704751|author=Kevin LaGrandeur|title=The Persistent Peril of the Artificial Slave|journal=Science Fiction Studies|year=2011|volume=38|issue=2|page=232|doi=10.5621/sciefictstud.38.2.0232|access-date
In modern times as the prospect of [[Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] looms nearer, philosopher [[Nick Bostrom]] has said that superintelligent AI systems with goals that are not aligned with human ethics are intrinsically dangerous unless extreme measures are taken to ensure the safety of humanity.
<blockquote>Basically we should assume that a 'superintelligence' would be able to achieve whatever goals it has. Therefore, it is extremely important that the goals we endow it with, and its entire motivation system, is 'human friendly.'</blockquote>
In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky called for the creation of
[[Steve Omohundro]] says that a sufficiently advanced AI system will, unless explicitly counteracted, exhibit a number of [[Instrumental convergence#Basic AI drives|basic "drives"]], such as resource acquisition, [[self-preservation]], and continuous self-improvement, because of the intrinsic nature of any goal-driven systems and that these drives will, "without special precautions", cause the AI to exhibit undesired behavior.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Omohundro |first=S. M. |date=February 2008 |title=The basic AI drives |journal=Artificial General Intelligence |volume=171 |pages=483–492
[[Alexander Wissner-Gross]] says that AIs driven to maximize their future freedom of action (or causal path entropy) might be considered friendly if their planning horizon is longer than a certain threshold, and unfriendly if their planning horizon is shorter than that threshold.<ref>{{cite web | last=Dvorsky | first=George | title=How Skynet Might Emerge From Simple Physics | website=Gizmodo | date=2013-04-26 | url=https://gizmodo.com/how-skynet-might-emerge-from-simple-physics-482402911 | access-date=2021-12-23 | archive-date=2021-10-08 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211008105300/https://gizmodo.com/how-skynet-might-emerge-from-simple-physics-482402911 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wissner-Gross | first1 = A. D. | author-link1 = Alexander Wissner-Gross | last2 = Freer | first2 = C. E. | author-link2 = Cameron Freer | year = 2013 | title = Causal entropic forces
Luke Muehlhauser, writing for the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]], recommends that [[machine ethics]] researchers adopt what [[Bruce Schneier]] has called the "security mindset": Rather than thinking about how a system will work, imagine how it could fail. For instance, he suggests even an AI that only makes accurate predictions and communicates via a text interface might cause unintended harm.<ref name=MuehlhauserSecurity2013>{{cite web|last1=Muehlhauser|first1=Luke|title=AI Risk and the Security Mindset|url=http://intelligence.org/2013/07/31/ai-risk-and-the-security-mindset/|website=Machine Intelligence Research Institute|access-date=15 July 2014|date=31 Jul 2013|archive-date=19 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140719205835/http://intelligence.org/2013/07/31/ai-risk-and-the-security-mindset/|url-status=live}}</ref>
In 2014, Luke Muehlhauser and Nick Bostrom underlined the need for 'friendly AI';<ref name=think13>{{Cite journal|last1=Muehlhauser|first1=Luke|last2=Bostrom|first2=Nick|title=Why We Need Friendly AI|date=2013-12-17|journal=Think|volume=13|issue=36|pages=41–47|doi=10.1017/s1477175613000316|s2cid=143657841|issn=1477-1756}}</ref> nonetheless, the difficulties in designing a 'friendly' superintelligence, for instance via programming counterfactual moral thinking, are considerable.<ref name=boyles2019>{{Cite journal|last1=Boyles|first1=Robert James M.|last2=Joaquin|first2=Jeremiah Joven|date=2019-07-23|title=Why friendly AIs won't be that friendly: a friendly reply to Muehlhauser and Bostrom|journal=AI & Society|volume=35|issue=2|pages=505–507|doi=10.1007/s00146-019-00903-0|s2cid=198190745|issn=0951-5666}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chan|first=Berman|date=2020-03-04|title=The rise of artificial intelligence and the crisis of moral passivity|journal=AI & Society|volume=35|issue=4|pages=991–993|language=en|doi=10.1007/s00146-020-00953-9|s2cid=212407078|issn=1435-5655|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/CHATRO-56|access-date=2023-01-21|archive-date=2023-02-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114013/https://philpapers.org/rec/CHATRO-56|url-status=live}}</ref>
== Coherent extrapolated volition ==
{{Main|Coherent extrapolated volition}}
Yudkowsky advances the Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) model. According to him, our coherent extrapolated volition is
Rather than a Friendly AI being designed directly by human programmers, it is to be designed by a "seed AI" programmed to first study [[human nature]] and then produce the AI
== Other approaches ==
{{See also|AI control problem#Alignment|AI safety}}
[[Steve Omohundro]] has proposed a "scaffolding" approach to [[AI safety]], in which one provably safe AI generation helps build the next provably safe generation.<ref name=Hendry2014>{{cite news|last1=Hendry|first1=Erica R.|title=What Happens When Artificial Intelligence Turns On Us?|url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/what-happens-when-artificial-intelligence-turns-us-180949415/|access-date=15 July 2014|
[[Seth Baum]] argues that the development of safe, socially beneficial artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence is a function of the social psychology of AI research communities
In his book ''[[Human Compatible]]'', AI researcher [[Stuart J. Russell]] lists three principles to guide the development of beneficial machines. He emphasizes that these principles are not meant to be explicitly coded into the machines; rather, they are intended for the human developers. The principles are as follows:<ref name="HC">{{cite book |last=Russell |first=Stuart |date=October 8, 2019 |title=Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control |url=https://archive.org/details/humancompatiblea0000russ |___location=United States |publisher=Viking |isbn=978-0-525-55861-3 |author-link=Stuart J. Russell |oclc=1083694322 |url-access=registration }}</ref>{{rp|173}}
{{quote|
▲3. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior.}}
The "preferences" Russell refers to "are all-encompassing; they cover everything you might care about, arbitrarily far into the future."<ref name="HC"/>{{rp|173}} Similarly, "behavior" includes any choice between options,<ref name="HC"/>{{rp|177}} and the uncertainty is such that some probability, which may be quite small, must be assigned to every logically possible human preference.<ref name="HC"/>{{rp|201}}
== Public policy ==
[[James Barrat]], author of ''[[Our Final Invention]]'', suggested that "a public-private partnership has to be created to bring A.I.-makers together to share ideas about security—something like the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]], but in partnership with corporations." He urges AI researchers to convene a meeting similar to the [[Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA]], which discussed [[risks of biotechnology]].<ref name=Hendry2014 />
[[John McGinnis]] encourages governments to accelerate friendly AI research. Because the goalposts of friendly AI are not necessarily eminent, he suggests a model similar to the [[National Institutes of Health]], where "Peer review panels of computer and cognitive scientists would sift through projects and choose those that are designed both to advance AI and assure that such advances would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards." McGinnis feels that peer review is better "than regulation to address technical issues that are not possible to capture through bureaucratic mandates". McGinnis notes that his proposal stands in contrast to that of the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]], which generally aims to avoid government involvement in friendly AI.<ref name=McGinnis2010>{{cite journal|last1=McGinnis|first1=John O.|title=Accelerating AI|journal=Northwestern University Law Review|date=Summer 2010|volume=104|issue=3|pages=1253–1270|url=http://www.law.northwestern.edu/LAWREVIEW/Colloquy/2010/12/|access-date=16 July 2014|archive-date=1 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141201201600/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/LAWREVIEW/Colloquy/2010/12/|url-status=live}}</ref>
== Criticism ==▼
Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely
▲==Criticism==
▲{{see also|Technological singularity#Criticisms}}
Some philosophers claim that any truly "rational" agent, whether artificial or human, will naturally be benevolent; in this view, deliberate safeguards designed to produce a friendly AI could be unnecessary or even harmful.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Kornai | first=András | title=Bounding the impact of AGI | journal=Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=26 | issue=3 | date=2014-05-15 | issn=0952-813X | doi=10.1080/0952813x.2014.895109 | pages=417–438 | s2cid=7067517 |quote=...the essence of AGIs is their reasoning facilities, and it is the very logic of their being that will compel them to behave in a moral fashion... The real nightmare scenario (is one where) humans find it advantageous to strongly couple themselves to AGIs, with no guarantees against self-deception.}}</ref> Other critics question whether
▲Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely, and that therefore friendly AI is unlikely. Writing in ''[[The Guardian]]'', Alan Winfield compares human-level artificial intelligence with faster-than-light travel in terms of difficulty, and states that while we need to be "cautious and prepared" given the stakes involved, we "don't need to be obsessing" about the risks of superintelligence.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Winfield|first1=Alan|title=Artificial intelligence will not turn into a Frankenstein's monster|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/10/artificial-intelligence-will-not-become-a-frankensteins-monster-ian-winfield|access-date=17 September 2014|work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> Boyles and Joaquin, on the other hand, argue that Luke Muehlhauser and [[Nick Bostrom]]’s proposal to create friendly AIs appear to be bleak. This is because Muehlhauser and Bostrom seem to hold the idea that intelligent machines could be programmed to think counterfactually about the moral values that humans beings would have had.<ref name=think13 /> In an article in ''[[AI & Society]]'', Boyles and Joaquin maintain that such AIs would not be that friendly considering the following: the infinite amount of antecedent counterfactual conditions that would have to be programmed into a machine, the difficulty of cashing out the set of moral values—that is, those that a more ideal than the ones human beings possess at present, and the apparent disconnect between counterfactual antecedents and ideal value consequent.<ref name=boyles2019 />
The inner workings of advanced AI systems may be complex and difficult to interpret, leading to concerns about transparency and accountability.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Norvig |first=Peter |title=Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach |last2=Russell |first2=Stuart |publisher=Pearson |year=2010 |isbn=978-0136042594 |edition=3rd}}</ref>
▲Some philosophers claim that any truly "rational" agent, whether artificial or human, will naturally be benevolent; in this view, deliberate safeguards designed to produce a friendly AI could be unnecessary or even harmful.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Kornai | first=András | title=Bounding the impact of AGI | journal=Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=26 | issue=3 | date=2014-05-15 | issn=0952-813X | doi=10.1080/0952813x.2014.895109 | pages=417–438 | s2cid=7067517 |quote=...the essence of AGIs is their reasoning facilities, and it is the very logic of their being that will compel them to behave in a moral fashion... The real nightmare scenario (is one where) humans find it advantageous to strongly couple themselves to AGIs, with no guarantees against self-deception.}}</ref> Other critics question whether it is possible for an artificial intelligence to be friendly. Adam Keiper and Ari N. Schulman, editors of the technology journal ''[[The New Atlantis (journal)|The New Atlantis]]'', say that it will be impossible to ever guarantee "friendly" behavior in AIs because problems of ethical complexity will not yield to software advances or increases in computing power. They write that the criteria upon which friendly AI theories are based work "only when one has not only great powers of prediction about the likelihood of myriad possible outcomes, but certainty and consensus on how one values the different outcomes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-problem-with-friendly-artificial-intelligence|author=Adam Keiper and Ari N. Schulman|title=The Problem with 'Friendly' Artificial Intelligence|publisher=The New Atlantis|access-date = 2012-01-16}}</ref>
== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[AI control problem]]▼
* [[Affective computing]]
* [[AI alignment]]
* [[AI effect]]
* [[AI takeover]]
* [[Applications of artificial intelligence]]
* [[Artificial intelligence arms race]]
* [[Artificial intelligence systems integration]]
▲* [[Ethics of artificial intelligence]]
* [[Autonomous agent]]
* [[Embodied agent]]
* [[Emotion recognition]]
* [[Existential risk from artificial general intelligence]]
* [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)]]
* [[Hybrid intelligent system]]
* [[Intelligence explosion]]
* [[Intelligent agent]]
* [[Machine ethics]]
* [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]]
* [[OpenAI]]
* [[Regulation of algorithms]]
* [[Roko's basilisk]]
* [[Sentiment analysis]]
* [[Singularitarianism]] – a moral philosophy advocated by proponents of Friendly AI
* [[Suffering risks]]
* [[Technological singularity]]
* [[Three Laws of Robotics]]
{{div col end}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}
== Further reading ==
* Yudkowsky, E. (2008). [http://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk]. In ''Global Catastrophic Risks'', Oxford University Press
* Omohundro, S.
* Mason, C. (2008). [https://aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2008/WS-08-07/WS08-07-023.pdf Human-Level AI Requires Compassionate Intelligence] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220109170511/https://aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2008/WS-08-07/WS08-07-023.pdf |date=2022-01-09 }} Appears in [[AAAI]] 2008 Workshop on Meta-Reasoning: Thinking About Thinking.
* Froding, B. and Peterson, M. (2021). [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09556-w Friendly AI] Ethics and Information Technology,
== External links ==
* [
* [https://intelligence.org/ie-faq/#WhatIsFriendlyAI What is Friendly AI?] — A brief description of Friendly AI by the Machine Intelligence Research Institute.
* [https://intelligence.org/files/CFAI.pdf Creating Friendly AI 1.0: The Analysis and Design of Benevolent Goal Architectures] — A near book-length description from the MIRI
* [http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/SIAI_critique.html Critique of the MIRI Guidelines on Friendly AI] — by [[Bill Hibbard]]
* [http://www.optimal.org/peter/siai_guidelines.htm Commentary on MIRI's Guidelines on Friendly AI] — by Peter Voss.
* [
{{Existential risk from artificial intelligence}}
Line 102 ⟶ 119:
[[Category:Singularitarianism]]
[[Category:Transhumanism]]
[[Category:Affective computing]]
| |||