Friendly artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:59, 17 August 2023

Revision as of 07:19, 17 September 2023

Line 54:

[[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>

According to [[Gary Marcus]], the annual amount of money being spent on developing machine morality is tiny.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Marcus|first1=Gary|title=Moral Machines|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/moral-machines|access-date=30 July 2014|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|date=24 November 2012|archive-date=8 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140808031914/http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/moral-machines|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Criticism==