Futurology, Science, AI, Philosophy, Psychology

How would you know whether an A.I. was a person or not?

I did an A-level in Philosophy. (For non UK people, A-levels are a 2-year course that happens after highschool and before university).

I did it for fun rather than good grades — I had enough good grades to get into university, and when the other A-levels required my focus, I was fine putting zero further effort into the Philosophy course. (Something which was very clear when my final results came in).

What I didn’t expect at the time was that the rapid development of artificial intelligence in my lifetime would make it absolutely vital that humanity develops a concrete and testable understanding of what counts as a mind, as consciousness, as self-awareness, and as capability to suffer. Yes, we already have that as a problem in the form of animal suffering and whether meat can ever be ethical, but the problem which already exists, exists only for our consciences — the animals can’t take over the world and treat us the way we treat them, but an artificial mind would be almost totally pointless if it was as limited as an animal, and the general aim is quite a lot higher than that.

Some fear that we will replace ourselves with machines which may be very effective at what they do, but don’t have anything “that it’s like to be”. One of my fears is that we’ll make machines that do “have something that it’s like to be”, but who suffer greatly because humanity fails to recognise their personhood. (A paperclip optimiser doesn’t need to hate us to kill us, but I’m more interested in the sort of mind that can feel what we can feel).

I don’t have a good description of what I mean by any of the normal words. Personhood, consciousness, self awareness, suffering… they all seem to skirt around the core idea, but to the extent that they’re correct, they’re not clearly testable; and to the extent that they’re testable, they’re not clearly correct. A little like the maths-vs.-physics dichotomy.

Consciousness? Versus what, subconscious decision making? Isn’t this distinction merely system 1 vs. system 2 thinking? Even then, the word doesn’t tell us what it means to have it objectively, only subjectively. In some ways, some forms of A.I. looks like system 1 — fast, but error prone, based on heuristics; while other forms of A.I. look like system 2 — slow, careful, deliberative weighing all the options.

Self-awareness? What do we even mean by that? It’s absolutely trivial to make an A.I. aware of it’s own internal states, even necessary for anything more than a perceptron. Do we mean a mirror test? (Or non-visual equivalent for non-visual entities, including both blind people and also smell-focused animals such as dogs). That at least can be tested.

Capability to suffer? What does that even mean in an objective sense? Is suffering equal to negative reinforcement? If you have only positive reinforcement, is the absence of reward itself a form of suffering?

Introspection? As I understand it, the human psychology of this is that we don’t really introspect, we use system 2 thinking to confabulate justifications for what system 1 thinking made us feel.

Qualia? Sure, but what is one of these as an objective, measurable, detectable state within a neural network, be it artificial or natural?

Empathy or mirror neurons? I can’t decide how I feel about this one. At first glance, if one mind can feel the same as another mind, that seems like it should have the general ill-defined concept I’m after… but then I realised, I don’t see why that would follow and had the temporarily disturbing mental concept of an A.I. which can perfectly mimic the behaviour corresponding to the emotional state of someone they’re observing, without actually feeling anything itself.

And then the disturbance went away as I realised this is obviously trivially possible, because even a video recording fits that definition… or, hey, a mirror. A video recording somehow feels like it’s fine, it isn’t “smart” enough to be imitating, merely accurately reproducing. (Now I think about it, is there an equivalent issue with the mirror test?)

So, no, mirror neurons are not enough to be… to have the qualia of being consciously aware, or whatever you want to call it.

I’m still not closer to having answers, but sometimes it’s good to write down the questions.

Advertisements
Standard
AI, Philosophy

Nietzsche, Facebook, and A.I.

“If you stare into The Facebook, The Facebook stares back at you.”

I think this fits the reality of digital surveillance much better than it fits the idea Nietzsche was trying to convey when he wrote the original.

Facebook and Google look at you with an unblinking eye; they look at all of us which they can reach, even those without accounts; two billion people on Facebook, their every keystroke recorded, even those they delete; every message analysed, even those never sent; every photo processed, even those kept private; on Google maps, every step taken or turn missed, every place where you stop, becomes an update for the map.

We’re lucky that A.I. isn’t as smart as a human, because if it was, such incomprehensible breadth and depth of experience would make Sherlock look like an illiterate child raised by wild animals in comparison. Even without hypothesising new technologies that a machine intelligence may or may not invent, even just a machine that does exactly what its told by its owner… this dataset alone ought to worry any who fear the thumb of a totalitarian micro-managing your life.

Standard
AI, Futurology

The end of human labour is inevitable, here’s why

OK. So, you might look at state-of-the-art A.I. and say “oh, this uses too much power compared to a human brain” or “this takes too many examples compared to a human brain”.

So far, correct.

But there are 7.6 billion humans: if an A.I. watches all of them all of the time (easy to imagine given around 2 billion of us already have two or three competing A.I. in our pockets all the time, forever listening for an activation keyword), then there is an enormous set of examples with which to train the machine mind.

“But,” you ask, “what about the power consumption?”

Humans cost a bare minimum of $1.25 per day, even if they’re literally slaves and you only pay for food and (minimal) shelter. Solar power can be as cheap as 2.99¢/kWh.

Combined, that means that any A.I. which uses less than 1.742 kilowatts per human-equivalent-part is beating the cheapest possible human — By way of comparison, Google’s first generation Tensor processing unit uses 40 W when busy — in the domain of Go, it’s about 174,969 times as cost efficient as a minimum-cost human, because four of them working together as one can teach itself to play Go better than the best human in… three days.

And don’t forget that it’s reasonable for A.I. to have as many human-equivalent-parts as there are humans performing whichever skill is being fully automated.

Skill. Not sector, not factory, skill.

And when one skill is automated away, when the people who performed that skill go off to retrain on something else, no matter where they are or what they do, there will be an A.I. watching them and learning with them.

Is there a way out?

Sure. All you have to do is make sure you learn a skill nobody else is learning.

Unfortunately, there is a reason why “thinking outside the box” is such a business cliché: humans suck at that style of thinking, even when we know what it is and why it’s important. We’re too social, we copy each other and create by remixing more than by genuinely innovating, even when we think we have something new.

Computers are, ironically, better than humans at thinking outside the box: two of the issues in Concrete Problems in AI Safety are there because machines easily stray outside the boxes we are thinking within when we give them orders. (I suspect that one of the things which forces A.I. to need far more examples to learn things than we humans do is that they have zero preconceived notions, and therefore must be equally open-minded to all possibilities).

Worse, no matter how creative you are, if other humans see you performing a skill that machines have yet to master, those humans will copy you… and then the machines, even today’s machines, will rapidly learn from all the enthusiastic humans who are so gleeful about their new trick to stay one step ahead of the machines, the new skill they can point to and say “look, humans are special, computers can’t do this” right up until the computers do it.

Standard
AI, Science

Why do people look by touching?

Every so often, I see someone get irritated that “can I see that?” tends to mean “may I hold that while I look at it?” Given how common this is, and how natural it seems to me to want to hold something while I examine it, I wonder if there is an underlying reason behind it.

Seeing some of the pictures in a recent blog post by Google’s research team, I wonder if that reason may be related to how “quickly” we learn to recognise new objects — quickly in quotes, because we make “one observation” while a typical machine-learning system may need thousands of examples to learn from — what if we also need a lot of examples, but we don’t realise that we need them because we’re seeing them in a continuous sequence?

Human vision isn’t as straightforward as a video played back on a computer, but it’s not totally unreasonable to say we see things “more than once” when we hold them in our hands — and, crucially, if we hold them while we do so we get to see those things with additional information: the object’s distance and therefore size comes from proprioception (which tells us where our hand is), not just from binocular vision; we can rotate it and see it from multiple angles, or rotate ourselves and see how different angles of light changes its appearance; we can bring it closer to our eyes to see fine detail that we might have missed from greater distance; we can rub the surface to see if markings on the surface are permanent or temporary.

So, the hypothesis (conjecture?) is this: humans need to hold things to look at them properly, just to gather enough information to learn what it looks like in general rather than just from one point of view. Likewise, machine learning systems seem worse than they are for lack of capacity to create realistic alternative perspectives of the things they’ve been tasked with classifying.

Not sure how I’d test both parts of this idea. A combination of robot arm, camera, and machine learning system that manipulates an object it’s been asked to learn to recognise is the easy part; but when testing the reverse in humans, one would need to show them a collection of novel objects, half of which they can hold and the other half of which they can only observe in a way that actively prevents them from seeing multiple perspectives, and then test their relative abilities to recognise the objects in each category.

Standard
AI, Software, Technology

Automated detection of propaganda and cultural bias

The ability of word2vec to detect relationships between words (for example that “man” is to “king” as “woman” is to “queen”) can already be used to detect biases. Indeed, the biases are so easy to find, so blatant, that they are embarrassing.

Can this automated detection of cultural bias be used to detect deliberate bias, such as propaganda? It depends in part on how large the sample set is, and in part on how little data the model needs to become effective.

I suspect that such a tool would work only for long-form propaganda, and for detecting people who start to believe and repeat that propaganda: individual tweets — or even newspaper articles — are likely to be far too short for these tools, but the combined output of all their tweets (or a year of some journalist’s articles) might be sufficient.

If it is at all possible, it would of course be very useful. For a few hours, until the propagandists started using the same tool the way we now all use spell checkers — they’re professionals, after all, who will use the best tools money can buy.

That’s the problem with A.I., as well as the promise: it’s a tool for thinking faster, and it’s a tool which is very evenly distributed throughout society, not just in the hands of those we approve of.

Of course… are we right about who we approve of, or is our hatred of Them just because of propaganda we’ve fallen for ourselves?

(Note: I’ve seen people, call them Bobs, saying “x is propaganda”, but I’ve never been able to convince any of the Bobs that they are just as likely to fall for propaganda as the people they are convinced have fallen for propaganda. If you have any suggestions, please comment).

Standard
AI, Futurology, Science, Software, Technology

The Singularity is Dead, Long Live The Singularity

The Singularity is one form of the idea that machines are constantly being improved and will one day make us all unemployable. Phrased that way, it should be no surprise that discussions of the Singularity are often compared with those of the Luddites from 1816.

“It’s different now!” many people say. Are they right to think that those differences are important?

There have been so many articles and blog posts (and books) about the Singularity that I need to be careful to make clear which type of “Singularity” I’m writing about.

I don’t believe in real infinities. Any of them. Something will get in the way before you reach them. I therefore do not believe in any single runaway process that becomes a deity-like A.I. in a finite time.

That doesn’t stop me worrying about “paperclip optimisers” that are just smart enough to cause catastrophic damage (this already definitely happens even with very dumb A.I.); nor does it stop me worrying about the effect of machines with an IQ of only 200 that can outsmart all but the single smartest human, and rendering mental labour as redundant as physical labour already is, or even an IQ of 85, which would make 15.9% of the world permanently unemployable (some do claim that machines can never be artistic, but, well, machines are already doing “creative” jobs in music, literature and painting, and even if they were not there is a limit as to how many such jobs there can be).

So, for “the Singularity”, what I mean is this:

“A date after which the average human cannot keep up with the rate of progress.”

By this definition, I think it’s already happened. How many people have kept track of these things?:

Most of this was unbelievable science fiction when I was born. Between my birth and 2006, only a few of these things became reality. More than half are things that happened or were invented in the 2010s. When Google’s AlphaGo went up against Lee Sedol he thought he’d easily beat it, 5-0 or 4-1, instead he lost 1-4.

If you’re too young to have a Facebook account, there’s a good chance you’ll never need to learn any foreign language. Or make any physical object. Or learn to drive… there’s a fairly good chance you won’t be allowed to drive. And once you become an adult, if you come up with an invention or a plot for a novel or a motif for a song, there will be at least four billion other humans racing against you to publish it.

Sure, we don’t have a von Neumann probe nor even a clanking replicator at this stage (we don’t even know how to make one yet, unless you count “copy an existing life form”), but given we’ve got 3D printers working at 10 nanometers already, it’s not all that unreasonable to assume we will in the near future. The fact that life exists proves such machines are possible, after all.

None of this is to say humans cannot or will not adapt to change. We’ve been adapting to changes for a long time, we have a lot of experience of adapting to changes, we will adapt more. But there is a question:

“How fast can you adapt?”

Time, as they say, is money. Does it take you a week to learn a new job? A machine that already knows how to do it has a £500 advantage over you. A month? The machine has a £2,200 advantage. You need to get another degree? It has an £80,000 advantage even if the degree was free. That’s just for the average UK salary with none of the extra things employers have to care about.

We don’t face problems just from the machines outsmarting us, we face problems if all the people working on automation can between them outpace any significant fraction of the workforce. And there’s a strong business incentive to pay for such automation, because humans are one of the most expensive things businesses have to pay for.

I don’t have enough of a feeling for economics to guess what might happen if too many people are unemployed and therefore unable to afford the goods produced by machine labour, all I can say is that when I was in secondary school, all of us young enough to be without income, pirating software and music was common. (I was the only one with a Mac, so I had to make do with magazine cover CDs for my software, but I think the observation is still worth something).

Standard