Cookies   I display ads to cover the expenses. See the privacy policy for more information. You can keep or reject the ads.

Video thumbnail
Henry: “Will Artificial Intelligence ever replace humans?” is a hotly debated question
these days.
Some people claim computers will eventually gain superintelligence, be able to outperform
humans on any task, and destroy humanity.
Other people say “don’t worry, AI will just be another tool we can use and control,
like our current computers.”
So we’ve got physicist and AI-researcher Max Tegmark back again to share with us the
collective takeaways from the recent Asilomar conference on the future of AI that he helped
organize –\hand he’s going to help separate AI myths from AI facts.
Max: Hello!
Henry: First of all, Max, machines (including computers) have long been better than us at
many tasks, like arithmetic, or weaving, but those are often repetitive and mechanical
operations.
So why shouldn’t I believe that there are some things that are simply impossible for
machines to do as well as people?
Say making minutephysics videos, or consoling a friend?
Max: Well, we’ve traditionally thought of intelligence as something mysterious that
can only exist in biological organisms, especially humans.
But from the perspective of modern physical science, intelligence is simply a particular
kind of information processing and reacting performed by particular arrangements of elementary
particles moving around, and there’s no law of physics that says it’s impossible
to do that kind of information processing better than humans already do.
It’s not a stretch to say that earthworms process information better than rocks, and
humans better than earthworms, and in many areas, machines are already better than humans.
This suggests we’ve likely only seen the tip of the intelligence iceberg, and that
we’re on track to unlock the full intelligence that’s latent in nature and use it to help
humanity flourish - or flounder.
Henry: So how do we keep ourselves on the right side of the “flourish or flounder”
balance?
What, if anything, should we really be concerned about with superintelligent AI?
Max: Here’s what has many top AI researchers concerned: not machines or computers turning
evil, but something more subtle: superintelligence that simply doesn’t share our goals.
\hIf a heat-seeking missile is homing in on you, you probably wouldn’t think: “No
need to worry, it’s not evil, it’s just following its programming.”
No, what matters to you is what the heat-seeking missile does and how well it does it, not
what it’s feeling, or whether it has feelings at all.
The real worry isn’t malevolence, but competence.
A superintelligent AI is by definition very good at attaining its goals, so the most important
thing for us to do is to ensure that its goals are aligned with ours.
As an analogy, humans are more intelligent and competent than ants, \hand if we want
to build a hydroelectric dam where there happens to be an anthill, there may no malevolence
involved, but, well... too bad for the ants.
Cats and dogs, on the other hand, have done a great job of aligning their goals with the
goals of humans – I mean, even though I’m a physicist, I can’t help think kittens
are the cutest particle arrangements in our universe...
If we build superintelligence, we’d be better off in the position of cats and dogs than
ants.
Or better yet, we’ll figure out how to ensure that AI adopts our goals rather than the other
way around.
Henry: And when exactly is superintelligence going to arrive?
When do we need to start panicking?
Max: First of all, Henry, superintelligence doesn’t have to be something negative.
In fact, if we get it right, AI might become the best thing ever to happen to humanity.
Everything I love about civilization is the product of intelligence, so if AI amplifies
our collective intelligence enough to solve today’s and tomorrow’s greatest problems,
humanity might flourish like never before.
Second, most AI researchers think superintelligence is at least decades away...
Buuuut the research needed to ensure that it remains beneficial to humanity (rather
than harmful) might also take decades, so we need to start right away.
For example, we’ll need to figure out how to ensure machines learn the collective goals
of humanity, adopt these goals for themselves, and retain the goals as they keep getting
smarter.
And what about when our goals disagree?
Should we vote on what the machine’s goals should be?
Just do whatever the president wants?
Whatever the creator of the superintelligence wants?
Let the AI decide?
\hIn a very real way, the question of how to live with superintelligence is a question
of what sort of future we want to create for humanity.
Which obviously shouldn’t just be left to AI researchers, as caring and socially skilled
as we are.;)
Henry: Thanks, Max!
So, uh, how do I get involved to make sure we don’t end up living in a superintelligence-powered
dictatorship?
Max: At the Future of Life Institute (Henry interjects: which is sponsoring this video),
we’ve built a site where you can go to answer questions, ask questions, and otherwise contribute
your thoughts to help shape the future of AI policy and research.
Link’s in the video description.
Henry: Awesome.