It seems that with each passing day, the debate of artificial intelligence and autonomous machines grows. Such debate used to take place only in science fiction, say, 20-50 years ago. 1-20 years ago, the debate picked up steam as science begins to catchup to fiction. What was thought to be impossible then, is on the horizon tomorrow.
Science and technology is making great scientific progress. Humanity can create life in labs, now, and not just in bedrooms. In the name of progress, we push on to push our limits. We push on for the sake of science.
Innovation is such a spontaneous thing. It was eureka moments from the past that spawned what we now take for granted, such as velcro or light bulbs or the wheel. It is time, however, that we consider our future and harness our innovation before we have another Manhattan Project. Science for the sake of science is good for science, but can be the end of humans. It is now time for us to do what is right for humans, and not science.
2009 has been a great year, so far, for the philosophical debate of artificial intelligence. Influential scientists met earlier this year to discuss our path towards the creation of artificial intelligence. This is evidence that scientists have moved beyond their naivete of the past when they thought splitting atoms would be great for mankind. 220,000 that lived in Nagasaki, Japan and Hiroshima, Japan along with the many more residually affected by the Manhattan Project would disagree. For a group of scientists to convene the way they did shows great promise in humanity’s future and avoiding our own extinction. Still – more must be done.
Before America goes to war, Congress and the Senate convene with the President of the United States. Discourse, dialog takes place. This dialog also takes into account public opinion. We say, in America, that soldiers are our guns, civilians aim them. Scientists must be treated the very same way. If we are taking seriously the warnings of pioneering scientists that artificial intelligence is a lifetime away, then we must avoid cognitive dissonance and acknowledge that our lives are at stake. Steps must be taken now to ensure our survival. This means aiming, so to speak, the goals of scientists that work diligently in labs. Especially the scientists that are working for the sake of science, and not for the sake of humans.
If we keep humans in mind, and not science, than we can achieve great strides in science without risking our lives. We must reroute the thinking of artificial intelligence.
Immediate artificial intelligence implications are the battlefield. Machine soldiers are more desirable than human soldiers because of increased efficiency and decreased loss of life. This spells potential danger, also. There are thousands of doomsday scenarios with autonomous machine soldiers. Pick your favorite science fiction action film and it can happen. The way to avoid such scenarios is to avoid autonomy.
An autonomous machine soldier is a robot that can choose its target, decide whether it needs to be killed or not, and is able to carry out that decision with weaponry. A human centric alternative is to split the functionality of these three robots – allowing one to choose the target, another to decide how to react, and another to carry out the action. The links between the systems must be limited to redlighting or greenlighting the action, nothing ever more.
Artificial intelligence is a risky business. It is much easier to talk a human being down from a rampage than it is an artificial intelligent machine. The most favorable, more humancentric, route is cybernetic enhancements. Rather than rely on autonomous machines, we could and should focus on enhancing our own capabilities. Projects such as HAL-5 are an example of science for humans sake. HAL-5 increases the human potential using cybernetics rather than increasing reliance on machines. In addition to the human body, the human brain goes largely unused which suggests that inroads can be made in the area of brain-related cybernetics.
As machines becomes increasingly ubiquitous, we increase our reliance upon them. The idea of machines doing work for us is charming at first thought. Second thought reveals to us that it puts people out of work, increases dependency and increases danger to humanity. Machines are not inherently bad, but their application can be.
Never settle on the idea of ceding dominion of our lives to machines. We sit atop the Earth’s food chain. Never loose sight of what is at stake. The way to proceed is simple: put humanity first. Not science for science’s sake, but science for the sake of humanity.
