Selling Tomorrows

Artificial Intelligence Scare Echoes 1950s Call for Robot Commission

The New York Times did a story earlier in the week on fears faced over the rise of artificial intelligence. Spurred by a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence at the Asimolar Conference, John Markoff reports:

"Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone."

The AAAI is giong to issue a report from the conference later this year assessing "the possibility of “the loss of human control of computer-based intelligences."

A lot of this sounds like a proposal made by Edmund C. Berkeley, a "thinking machine expert" in 1950.  As reported in the new book Future, A Recent History, he said "'If we are not to be displaced by robots we must establish social control over them' he argued, suggesting perhaps the creation of a Robot Machine Commission whose oversight function would be analogous to that of the Atomic Energy Comission."

Critically, Markoff cites the PR war against genetically modified foods as a model for how the AI industry could be undermined.  The topic deserves serious thought...by humans, of course. 

Top 5 Moments @ "Cyborgs on the Horizon" #WSF Panel

Since the use of mobile devices wasn't allowed at Friday's panel, I asked myself, "what would a 15th century monk do?" and took out a pen and captured the highlights on paper.  It doesn't have the snappy feel of live blogging, but given the mind-blowing nature of the panel members' comments, you won't be missing anything. 

1. Everyone agrees: no one can agree on a single the definition of either "robot" or "artificial intelligence."  I have a feeling that the debate will be settled the moment the AI reaches its own conclusion. 

2. For years, winning a game of chess was considered a good operational definition of artificial intelligence.  Then it happened, and we moved the ball forward on what "intelligent" means.  (See #1 above for when this point will become moot.)

3. The audience was shown a robot (courtesy of Hod Lipson ), which was conceptualizing and learning the shape of its own physical form through a simulator.  In real life, it looked like a spider.  In the simulator, you could see how, over time, it learned that it wasn't an amorphous blog, but something resembling a spider.  Then it taught itself how to walk -- well, limp across the room.  It was beautiful and pitiful all at the same time. (See video here.)

4. Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, points out that the reason we anthropomorphize robots is because we're the only example of highly intelligent life we've seen.  But that in no way means that robots will see life as we do, or have the same goals. 

5. A second Bostrom comment: Whether you're build from carbon atoms or silicon atoms makes as much difference as the color of your skin. Wow.  Is it possible that the political and moral debates over AI could be settled BEFORE the technology reaches maturity?

Also check out this great report from the Battlestar SiteRep who attended the event. 

Robot "Adam" makes first scientific discovery by non-human

Reuters reports that a team of researchers in Wales have created "robo-scientists" that can "reason, formulate theories and discover scientific knowledge on their own."  As first reported in Science, the machines have made the world's first scientific discovery independent of humans, and the hope is that they can be put to work on research in under-funded areas like malaria.  The first robot's name?  Adam.  The next one will be called -- what else?  Eve. In another article in the journal, a team from Cornell reports the invention of a machine that figured out Newton's laws of motion simply by observing a pendulum.  That's one tasty apple.

What 'Crazy Space Racists' say about our fear of technology

Thinking back to the Top 5 Reasons the Media Love Stories about Tomorrow, io9's blog counts down the "Craziest Space Racists of All Time."  Among them, humans v. machines in The Animatrix's "The Second Renaissance." In it, the reason for the war is revealed to be a rebellion by robots who gained sentience and feelings, while humans, grown arrogant and lazy, treated them like slaves. There are so many archetypical references it's hard to keep count.  Here's an attempt:

1. Hate thy robot, hate thy self -- In classic sci-fi manner, we find ourselves empathizing with an alien/robot/whatever that's being persecuted by humans in order to gently confront our society's discrimination issues.  Many times it's a metaphor for racism, but often, it's simply a fear of "the other," often times something we've created.   

2. "For a time, it was good" says the narrator in the Animatrix, a reference to a period when robots gained sentience and humanity treated them as partners, or at least not like slaves.  This is a clear reference to future where we rediscovered Eden, and then were kicked out again when we didn't treat our human-like robots with love/respect.

3. In the Animatrix, two robots, clearly a husband and wife, appeal to the humans for peace.  They represent the best of what we consider humanity, while the humans, who yell at and then execute the couple, represent the worst.  

4. In what can be called a "double Frankenstein," humans create technology, which in turn destroys humanity.  But the reason turns out to be that humanity had become the monster which deserved to be destroyed.  

5. This morality play echoes The Cylons' nuking of humanity in Battlestar Gallactica, the Terminator franchise, the movie Wargames...it goes on and on, as io9's list reveals.  But how about looking back even further?  To Zeus' overthrow of his father Chronos in greek mythology or the Tower of Babel in Judaism?  

Anyone think our species has some serious issues about technology and fearing what it creates?

Should robots be programmed with the Geneva Conventions?

Continuing today's robot theme, Candace Lombardi at CNET did a fascinating interview with P.W. Singer, author of "Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century." I haven't picked up the book yet, but check out the snip from the piece below.  Personally, I don't think Johnny 5 could hurt a fly.

"How will robot warfare change our international laws of war? If an autonomous robot mistakenly takes out 20 little girls playing soccer in the street and people are outraged, is the programmer going to get the blame? The manufacturer? The commander who sent in the robot fleet?
Singer: That's the essence of the problem of trying to apply a set of laws that are so old they qualify for Medicare to these kind of 21st-century dilemmas that come with this 21st-century technology. It's also the kind of question that you might have once only asked at Comic-Con and now it's a very real live question at the Pentagon.

I went around trying to get the answer to this sort of question meeting with people not only in the military but also in the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch. We're at a loss as to how to answer that question right now. The robotics companies are only thinking in terms of product liability...and international law is simply overwhelmed or basically ignorant of this technology."

Because Grandpa was a Roomba

The second reason "selling tomorrows" has become a critical skill is the number and nature of disruptive technologies coming to market in the next decade. Most often seen today in patent applications, start-ups, and university and corporate labs, they’re the inventions that will challenge our cultural, legal, ethical, and economic norms. Some of the more exotic examples include genetic modification, nanotechnology, 3D fabrication, artificial intelligence, and the commercial space industry. The degree of their disruption is surpassed only by the rate at which their adoption can be slowed by regulation, lack of investor confidence, and consumer/voter fears. Given these barriers, disruptive technologies require an even more compelling set of arguments to secure their acceptance.