In short, we are populating the world with all kinds
of smart machines and nobody is in charge.
Though there are thousands of computer scientists,
engineers, philosophers, trying to make smarter robots, and thousands of
companies scrambling to invent better ways to teach robots to learn, there is
no government body, no ethical council, no body of law about how we should treat what amounts to a
new order of intelligent beings. Questions like this arise: if a weaponized drone
acting autonomously kills someone, is it murder? If a humanized robot taking
care of your ancient mother reaches out and chokes her for no good reason, who
is responsible? Our notion of crime rests on the assumption that there must
first be a criminal mind with intent to do harm. Our idea of machines is that
they have no minds, and therefore cannot have intentions. And yet the whole smart
enterprise unfolding in the world around us at terrifying speed is generating
machines capable of intentional, surprising and original behavior.
One commentator refers to this change as a tidal
wave—out there, huge and vast, not quite upon us, but possibly utterly
devastating when it hits. The Pew
Research Center thinks some of us are worried, others not so much. The economic
impact of smart robots interconnected to each other and using big data came up
at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January. Speakers expressed concern
about a future in which human intellectual laborers will be replaced by robots
imbued with ever- improving artificial intelligence. The Brookings Institute
has been publishing a series on civilian robotics. In one paper, robotocist Heather
Knight of Carnegie Mellon University writes about the beauty of the way humans quickly develop empathetic
relationships with smart machines, treating some almost as if they are
alive. She suggests this will drive us to develop law regarding the proper
treatment of machines in the same way we enforce the proper treatment of
animals. Another paper,written by
Ryan Calo, is called “The Case for a
Federal Robotics Commission.” Calo, of University of Washington,
argues that the US should create a national forum where the issues raised by
the rise of intelligent machines can be addressed. For him, the point of this
Commission would be to better drive robotics/artificial intelligence innovations
so that America maintains its position at the leading edge of technology. And
where is this leading edge, you ask. Calo has an answer.
“Robots
increasingly display emergent behavior, meaning behavior that is useful but
cannot be anticipated in advance by operators,” he says.
Yet Calo wants this Commission to have no regulatory
powers.
Well I do.
To keep abreast of the arguments put forward by
those in love with this smart future, check out robohub at http://www.robohub.org.
If you find any hearings, investigations, Congressional
or Parliamentary committees trying to grapple with these technologies before
they grapple with us, please let me know.
And please start asking questions I haven’t thought
of.
Have you thought of putting 'feedjit' on your blog .. its a gadget to see who is visiting you .. or rather where they are located globally... you can add the gizmo quite easily ... I think a lot of people are eagerly anticipating your new book ... and I am just really glad I found "Cloak of Green" which I am returning to the Mount Allison University library today ... I have ordered a copy through the local bookseller .... your work is really important ... thanks for all you have given [and no doubt put up with for your efforts] ... robohub doesn't appear to let me in ... I think its a understatement to say 'transhumanism' is getting away from us all very quickly .. probably I was most alerted a few years ago by finding 2045.com .. why do these science guys all have those glassy eyed stares?
ReplyDelete