Hartford Courant

Artificial intelligence may doom humanity

Artificial intelligence could doom humanity, but don't fear. @RexHuppke has a very dumb plan to save us all.

When I hear the term "artificial intelligence," I generally think of a self-righteous celebrity's Twitter feed, or Texas Gov. Rick Perry putting on glasses.

Turns out it's a bit more involved than that and, disappointingly, might lead to the eventual destruction of all we hold dear, including humans, celebrity Twitter feeds and Rick Perry's smartness goggles.

According to a new book, the development of computers capable of thinking and reasoning in a human fashion could lead to "an intelligence explosion." Nick Bostrom, a professor at the University of Oxford, posits that superintelligent computers could become several orders of magnitude smarter than the brightest of humans, creating a differential that might not end well for humanity.

In "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies," Bostrom suggests that rather than imagining that artificial intelligence (AI) is smart "in the sense that a scientific genius is smart compared with the average human being, it might be closer to the mark to think of such an AI as smart in the sense that an average human being is smart compared with a beetle or a worm."


Come to think of it, "Yikes" might have been a better title for Bostrom's book, which contains a chapter called "Is the default outcome doom?"

Fortunately, the book isn't so much a discussion of current technology as it is a philosophical examination of the pitfalls that lie ahead. It's a good way to become pre-terrified of the day we finally develop computers that can outsmart us, things Bostrom calls "superintelligent machines."

Though it may sound like the stuff of science fiction, the argument is quite reasoned, and the crux of it is this: "The principal reason for humanity's dominant position on Earth is that our brains have a slightly expanded set of faculties compared with other animals." So it's "plausible that any type of entity that developed a much greater than human level of intelligence would be potentially extremely powerful."

Powerful and exceedingly goal-oriented. If we create a superintelligent machine and give it a mission, it will complete that mission in the most efficient way possible. And if humans happen to be hampering its efficiency, it might, with all its mega-smarts, find a way to dispose of us.

Bostrom's overarching point is that humans developing artificial intelligence should proceed slowly, thoughtfully and cautiously, lest our iPhones decide they'd be better off on their own. It's a sensible warning, but I did have one question for the professor, who is also director of Oxford's scary-sounding Future of Humanity Institute.

I emailed him via a computer of average intelligence.

Q: You suggest that artificial intelligence may doom humanity, but isn't humanity's regular intelligence already doing a pretty good job of that, what with all the wars and pollution and such?

A: Well, there's always room for improvement. Superintelligence would help remove a bunch of existential risks, and that is indeed a good reason for wanting it to be developed — eventually. But we must solve the control problem first. Most wars and pollution don't pose any significant existential risk. The set of things that could realistically cause human extinction or permanently and drastically destroy our entire future is actually quite small. I think the biggest existential risks are related to certain future technologies which might be developed later in this century.

I suppose it's marginally comforting to know that our doom is more likely to come from something super-smart (a superintelligent machine) that we create in a dumb fashion rather than from something super-dumb (a nuclear war) that we create through general stupidity. It's a narrow victory, but a win's a win.

Still, I come from a long line of doom-averse people, so I'll offer up the following solution that may save us all: Stop thinking.

Regular readers of this column might suggest, correctly, that I stopped thinking some time ago, so I ask you to look to me as a thought leader. Or rather a lack-of-thought leader.

If we can refrain from getting any smarter (more dumber?), perhaps we'll never get to the point of creating a superintelligent machine.

Bostrom notes in his book that "when dumb, smarter is safer; yet when smart, smarter is more dangerous." So we need to reach some kind of middle-of-the-road intelligence equilibrium — not quite dumb but not quite smart.

Based on our celebrity Twitter feeds, our politicians, our cable news networks and my columns, I'd say we're well on our way to a superintelligence-free future.

And that means I can relax. And Rick Perry can stop wearing those glasses.


Copyright © 2016, Hartford Courant