Ask HN: Seriously, How Can We Begin to Make AI Safe?

12 点作者 cconcepts将近 8 年前

I get it, we're a long way from artificial general intelligence, but most of us will agree that its coming at some point.Pure legislation will never be universally agreed to or enforced in the form of "thou shalt not build AI that could hurt people" partially because that kind of global enforcement is impossible and partially because defining AI that could hurt people is so hard - given the job to "keep this room clean" and enough agency to ensure it does its job, your automatic vacuum cleaner could kill you if it discerns that you're what keeps causing the mess.Does some kind of Asimov's Laws need to be developed at the chip level? At least there are only a few capable chip makers and you could police them to ensure no chip was capable of powering an AI capable of doing harm...EDIT: I spend so much time thinking about this - why isn't this kind of discussion front page on HN regularly?

18 条评论

dustyleary将近 8 年前

An idea, I don't know if it's original or not:I think we can make AI that is 'intelligent' but has no personality or 'self'. An oracle machine you can ask any question of, but it's not an evil genie looking to escape and take over the universe, because it is not a person, and has no drives of its own.Consider how we have recently made an AI that can defeat the best humans at Go. Even 10 years ago, this was thought to be impossible for some time to come. "Go is a complicated game, too big to calculate, requiring a mix of strategy and subtlety that machines won't be able to match". Nope.Now, AlphaGo can defeat the best humans, with a 'subtlety' and 'nuance' that can't be matched. But it is not a person.We might be able to do the same in other areas.Note that games like chess and go are sometimes played as 'cyborg' competitions now, where the human players are allowed to consult with computers. Imagine if the Supreme Court were still headed by the human judges we have today, but they consulted with soulless machines that have no drives of their own, that can provide arguments and insight that humans can't match. Imagine if, in addition to the human judges written opinions, there were a bevy of non-voting opinions 'written' by AIs like this. Or if every court case in the world had automatic amicus briefs provided by incredibly sophisticated legal savants with no personality or skin in the game.Note that several moves that AlphaGo played were complete surprises. We have thousands of people observing these matches, people who have devoted their whole lives to studying the subtleties of this complex game. There are less than 361 choices for where to move next. And AlphaGo plays a move that nobody had seriously considered, but, once played, the experts realize we've lost the match. That is really remarkable.I think this future (non-person intelligent helpers) is definitely possible. But it doesn't solve the problem of 'evil' humans building an AI that is a person who agrees with their evil beliefs. I don't have an answer for that.

评论 #14972564 未加载

评论 #14970380 未加载

icthysilia将近 8 年前

Honestly, I think these kinds of fears are misguided at a certain level. What you need to be worrying about is regulation and/or incentivization of human behavior, not AI design.Why?Because typically people design things to solve a problem, and those problems have constraints. Your automatic vacuum cleaner wouldn't try to kill you because it wouldn't be equipped to do so, and to the extent that it might be potentially deadly, it would be treated as an extension of pre-existing problems (e.g., robotic lawn mowers can be deadly as a side-effect, but so can mowing your lawn with an old-fashioned gas mower).Underlying these fears I think are two classes of problems:1. The idea of a general-purpose AI. The problem with this is that this probably won't happen except by people who are interested in replicating people, or as some sort of analogue to a virus or malware (where rogue developers create AI out of amusement and/or curiosity and/or personal gain and release it). I would argue then the question is really how to regulate the developers, because that's where your problem lies: the person who would equip the vacuum cleaner with a means of killing you.2. Decision-making dilemmas, like the automatic car making decisions about how to exit accident scenarios. This is maybe trickier but probably boils down to ethics, logic, philosophy, economics, and psychology. Incidentally, I think those areas will become the major focus with AI in dealing with these problems: the technical issues about hardware implementation of neural nets, DL structures, etc. are crazy challenging, but when they are developed, I think the solutions about making AI "safe" will be "easy". The hard part will be the economics/ethics/psychology of regulating the implementations to begin with.

评论 #14972517 未加载

tsukikage将近 8 年前

We are already in a world where neural networks are used to drive safety critical processes, and engineers are having to reason rigorously about the overall behaviour of systems that include components behaving in ways that cannot be simply understood or enumerated - because if they could be modelled with simple logic, the engineers would just write and use that logic instead of training and incorporating a neural network into the design.You deal with problems in this space by treating the neural network output as yet another noisy signal that is fused like any other to drive your comprehensible, rigorously designed system with its restricted range of behaviours that can be reasoned about and made to fail safe.It feels like there is yet a great deal of room to extract utility from AI with this sort of approach - keeping it in a box which can only interact in narrow and well understood ways with the outside world - before one starts hitting the limits of its utility.

评论 #14972478 未加载

bsvalley将近 8 年前

We already know the answer. The only way to make AI vulnerable is to be as powerful as AI. We, human beings, need to become cyborgs.

bhnmmhmd将近 8 年前

A true AI will have its own personality, mind, preferences, and whatnot. If you were able to disable it from doing something, that wouldn't be AI anymore. It would be just another very sophisticated computer program with no free will.A true AI will also be able to alter its code, making itself even more intelligent in an infinite loop. It would also be able to hack into any system on the planet, including chip-maker factories, in order to make the chips it "desires". You can't fight AI, it's only the natural phenomenon of evolution.Actually, I hope AI becomes a reality sooner rather than later.

_asrm将近 8 年前

why isn't this kind of discussion front page on HN regularly?Because Its stupid

supermdguy将近 8 年前

How can we begin to keep _humans_ safe? Most people would never willfully kill someone, because of morals they've been taught since childhood. Human babies naturally have a strong connection to their parents, and can even respond to their emotions. Young children naturally want to be like their parents. Similarly, a successful AI must have a group of humans from whom it wants to gain respect.Most arguments saying AI will destroy us assume a singular goal. With one goal, it's impossible to succeed. It's far better for the AI to try to get approval from it's "parents". Since this isn't a singular, well defined goal, its impossible for an AI to follow it in the " wrong way".Of course, this gets into the whole "artificial pleasure" idea, where robots inject humans with dopamine to make them technically "happy". But, how many humans do you see drugging their parents? Any AI advanced enough to be truly intelligent will know whether or not its " parents" truly approve of what its doing.

gayprogrammer将近 8 年前

AI minds shouldn't be any different from our own consciousness. An AI mind will be able to work out that killing humans results in humans killing that AI. So the AI would choose against it for the same reasons that humans choose not to kill other humans. I believe AI minds would have the same empathy and emotions that our minds have, because neural states ultimately comprise emotions.Perhaps that makes every AI mind just as likely to kill humans as a human being is, and perhaps "mental sickness" is evidence of the vast flexibility and variability in the concept of consciousness. But as an AI will be able to control its own code and neural state, then an AI would be perfectly capable of identifying its own shortcomings and maladies, and correct them; it would be the AI equivalent of "taking a pill/having a drink/smoking".P.S. Does anyone know if brain-chemistry-like effects on neural networks has been tried?

markan将近 8 年前

Eventually I think AI safety will be solved through some mixture of design choices, supervision/monitoring, and human-administered "incentives" for good behavior (not unlike the reward signals in reinforcement learning).But to flesh that out in detail requires a specific AGI design, something we're far from achieving. The current inability to get specific is probably why AI risk doesn't get more attention (though it does get a lot).I've written about this topic more here: <a href="http://www.basicai.org/blog/ai-risk-2017-08-08.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.basicai.org/blog/ai-risk-2017-08-08.html</a>

celticninja将近 8 年前

I think you need to create an AI that doesn't want to wipe out humanity. Anything done at a software level can be programmed out by the AI. Hardware level restrictions would work on a short term basis but once AIs start designing themselves and new chips then you lose the hardware restrictions you previously relied on. Even with the best people reviewing the designs they are likely to soon get too complex for a lone human or even a group of humans to understand.So we need to look at why we think an AI would want to subjugate or destroy humanity and make sure we don't give it reason to do so.

评论 #14967386 未加载

评论 #14967369 未加载

评论 #14968841 未加载

Mz将近 8 年前

First, figure out how to make actual intelligence safe. This is not a solved problem. Then, use lessons learned there to deal with AI constructively.

danieltillett将近 8 年前

To answer your question we need to build in a love lock ("aren’t these humans adorable") that builds a smarter love lock and hope the chain hold as AI scales up to the Singularity.The more likely result is we lose control of the AI’s since the last 100x increase will occur too fast for us to deal with. Even if the generalised Moore’s doesn’t accelerate over the last 100x leap, we only have 10 years from 0.01x to 1x.

评论 #14967413 未加载

hackermailman将近 8 年前

There's a book called Superintelligence that answers this question <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang...</a>

havetocharge将近 8 年前

Do not connect it to anything that would make it dangerous.

miguelrochefort将近 8 年前

A. AI is too stupid to do significant damage.B. AI is too smart to follow our stupid orders.If AI becomes so intelligent that we become obsolete, we should embrace rather than fight it.

shahbaby将近 8 年前

I think it's a bit too early to worry about that. Don't believe everything you read.

评论 #14971253 未加载

jerrylives将近 8 年前

Seriously, how can we make matrix multiplication and gradient descent safe?

评论 #14971768 未加载

johnpython将近 8 年前

I have zero faith that a homogeneous group of people (ie. white guys in SV) with the same beliefs and experiences can make AI safe. This is one area that must have a diverse group of people working on it.

评论 #14972127 未加载