Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI
Thank you for your responses. Jeff, I have taken your suggestion and sent a couple questions to the Summit. My concern is motivated by noticing that the Summit includes speakers who have been very clear about their opposition to regulating AI, but none who I am aware of who have advocated it (except Bill McKibben, who wants a total ban). Ben, I was surprised not to see you, or several other frequent AGI contributors, among the speakers. Eliezer, glad to hear that you tried to get Bill Joy. But like Bill McKibben, he favors a total ban on AI, nanotechnology and genetic engineering. James Hughes, and others such as myself, want the benefits of these technologies but to regulate them to avoid potential catastrophes. Hopefully some of the non-speaking participants at the Summit will express the point of view in favor of proceeding with AI but regulating it. Bill http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/Singularity_Notes.html --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI
I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a widespread public movement like the environmental and consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the speakers. Can anyone explain why he is not included? Nick Bostrom is a speaker, and it is possible that he will advocate such regulation. However, while he has written about the regulation of nanotechnology and biotechnology, I not aware of anything he has written advocating regulation of intelligent machines. He has been very clear about the need to avoid existential threats from new technologies including artificial intelligence, and presumably he feels that regulation is needed to avoid these threats. I hope he will address this issue explicitly. Machine intelligence poses other threats to human happiness that are not existential but should be addressed by regulation. Ray Kurzweil has advocated regulation of biotechnology and nanotechnology, but appears to be pessimistic about regulation of AI. In The Singularity is Near, he writes But there is no purely technical strategy that is workable in this area, because greater intelligence will always find a way to circumvent measures that are the product of a lesser intelligence. I think the answer is to design AI to not want to harm humans (I think SIAI agrees with this, although we disagree on the details). Kurzweil also writes that AI will be intimately embedded in our bodies and brains and hence it will reflect our values because it will be us. But the values of some humans have led to much misery for other humans. If some humans are radically more intelligent than others and retain all their human competitive instincts, this could create a society that the vast majority will not want. If they are given a choice. Meetings like the Singularity Summit should help educate the public about the ethical choices they face with new technologies. Eliezer Yudkowsky is very clear about the dangers from artificial intelligence but is equally clear about his contempt for any regulation. Rather, it appears that his SIAI organization intends to be the first to create AI, which will be friendly and take over the world before governments have time to react. I think this scenario is very unlikely. Bill McKibben wants a total prohibition of all the radical new technolgies. Used correctly, these technologies can give all humans much better lives, and it would be shameful to ban them completely. It would also be politically impossible to convince all governments to ban them. Rather than preserving the world exactly as it is, we need to be more specific about the values we want to preserve and find ways to enjoy the benefits of new technologies while preserving those values. I have read the statements of the other speakers, included on the Singularity Summit web site, and none of them suggest that they will advocate regulation of intelligent machines. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, would be an interesting speaker for the Singularity Summit. Not as a religous leader, but as an ethical leader. He is very interested in new technologies and spoke to the Society for Neuroscience on 12 November 2005. On that same day he wrote, in an op-ed in the New York Times: It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals. If you are uneasy about listening to a religous leader, consider that in the same op-ed he also wrote: If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. The Singularity Summit should include all points of view, including advocates for regulation of intelligent machines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude this point of view. A copy of this message and other writings about the singularity are available at: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/Singularity_Notes.html Bill Hibbard --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI
- Original Message - From: Bill Hibbard Subject: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a widespread public movement like the environmental and consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the speakers. Bill Hibbard is another obvious choice. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI
On 5/10/06, Bill Hibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. ... The Singularity Summit should include all points of view, including advocates for regulation of intelligent machines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude this point of view. In fairness to the organizers, I would note that it is a brief event and all possible points of view cannot possibly be represented within such a brief period of time. As an aside, I certainly would have liked to be invited to speak regarding the implication of AGI for the Singularity, but I understand that they simply had a very small number of speaking slots: it's a one-day conference. I agree that if they have a series of similar events, then in time one of them should include someone advocating government regulation of intelligent machines, as this is a meaningful viewpoint deserving to be heard. I don't agree that this issue is so high-priority that leaving it out of this initial one-day event is a big problem... -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI
On 5/10/06, Bill Hibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Singularity Summit should include all points ofview, including advocates for regulation of intelligentmachines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude thispoint of view. Then it would be better if the Summit were not held at all. Nanotech, AGI etc advanced enough that constructive discussion of regulations would be possible, even if one agreed with them in principle, are still a very long way from even being on the horizon; talk of Singularity right now is wildly premature as anything other than inspiring science fiction; and blindly slapping on regulations at this point increases the probability that humanity will simply die without ever getting near the Singularity. Will the Summit include that point of view? To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
