136

This classic problem exhibits a basic misunderstanding of what an artificial general intelligence would likely entail. First, consider this programmer's joke: The programmer's wife couldn't take it anymore. Every discussion with her husband turned into an argument over semantics, picking over every piece of trivial detail. One day she sent him to the ...


67

As argued by Selvaraju et al., there are three stages of AI evolution, in all of which interpretability is helpful. In the early stages of AI development, when AI is weaker than human performance, transparency can help us build better models. It can give a better understanding of how a model works and helps us answer several key questions. For example why ...


65

How could self-driving cars make ethical decisions about who to kill? It shouldn't. Self-driving cars are not moral agents. Cars fail in predictable ways. Horses fail in predictable ways. the car is heading toward a crowd of 10 people crossing the road, so it cannot stop in time, but it can avoid killing 10 people by hitting the wall (killing the ...


58

I think this is a fairly common misconception about AI and computers, especially among laypeople. There are several things to unpack here. Let's suppose that there's something special about infinity (or about continuous concepts) that makes them especially difficult for AI. For this to be true, it must both be the case that humans can understand these ...


52

The answer to a lot of those questions depends on how the device is programmed. A computer capable of driving around and recognizing where the road goes is likely to have the ability to visually distinguish a human from an animal, whether that be based on outline, image, or size. With sufficiently sharp image recognition, it might be able to count the number ...


48

This popular meme originated in the era of 'Good Old Fashioned AI' (GOFAI), when the belief was that intelligence could usefully be defined entirely in terms of logic. The meme seems to rely on the AI parsing commands using a theorem prover, the idea presumably being that it's driven into some kind of infinite loop by trying to prove an unprovable or ...


48

tl;dr There are many valid reasons why people might fear (or better be concerned about) AI, not all involve robots and apocalyptic scenarios. To better illustrate these concerns, I'll try to split them into three categories. Conscious AI This is the type of AI that your question is referring to. A super-intelligent conscious AI that will destroy/enslave ...


29

To answer this question, first we need to know why developing conscious AI is hard. The main reason is that there is no mathematically or otherwise rigorous definition of consciousness. Sure you have an idea of consciousness as you experience it and we can talk about philosophical zombies but it isn’t a tangible concept that can be broken down and worked ...


28

Personally, I think this might be an overhyped issue. Trolley problems only occur when the situation is optimized to prevent "3rd options". A car has brakes, does it not? "But what if the brakes don't work?" Well, then the car is not allowed to drive at all. Even in regular traffic, human operators are taught that your speed should be limited as such that ...


25

It's true that the term has become a buzzword, and is now widely used to a point of confusion - however if you look at the definition provided by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, they write it as follows: We define AI as the study of agents that receive percepts from the environment and perform actions. Each such agent implements a function that maps ...


25

I see several good answers, but most are assuming that inferential infinite loop is a thing of the past, only related to logical AI (the famous GOFAI). But it's not. An infinite loop can happen in any program, whether it's adaptive or not. And as @SQLServerSteve pointed out, humans can also get stuck in obsessions and paradoxes. Modern approaches are ...


24

If I'm not mistaken you're looking for Roko's Basilisk, in which an otherwise benevolent future AI system tortures simulations of those who did not work to bring the system into existence


22

I believe it would be more accurate to say that (some) search engines use AI. Broadly saying "search engines are AI" is not really correct. At the core, most search engines are nothing more than an inverted text index using something like tf–idf scoring. That's a very mechanical/simple thing that nobody would really call AI. But more sophisticated search ...


21

The technological singularity is a theoretical point in time at which a self-improving artificial general intelligence becomes able to understand and manipulate concepts outside of the human brain's range, that is, the moment when it can understand things humans, by biological design, can't. The fuzziness about the singularity comes from the fact that, from ...


20

Whenever a problem becomes solvable by a computer, people start arguing that it does not require intelligence. John McCarthy is often quoted: "As soon as it works, no one calls it AI anymore" (Referenced in CACM). One of my teachers in college said that in the 1950's, a professor was asked what he thought was intelligent for a machine. The professor ...


18

The halting problem says that it's not possible to determine whether any given algorithm will halt. Therefore, while a machine could conceivably recognize some "traps", it couldn't test arbitrary execution plans and return EWOULDHANG for non-halting ones. The easiest solution to avoid hanging would be a timeout. For example, the AI controller process could ...


18

I think your premise is flawed. You seem to assume that to "understand"(*) infinities requires infinite processing capacity, and imply that humans have just that, since you present them as the opposite to limited, finite computers. But humans also have finite processing capacity. We are beings built of a finite number of elementary particles, forming a ...


16

Common sense knowledge is the collection of premises that everyone, in a certain context (hence common sense knowledge might be a function of the context), takes for granted. There would exist a lot of miscommunication between a human and an AI if the AI did not possess common sense knowledge. Therefore, common sense knowledge is fundamental to human-AI ...


15

Why do we need explainable AI? ... why we need to know "how does its intelligence work?" Because anyone with access to the equipment, enough skill, and enough time, can force the system to make a decision that is unexpected. The owner of the equipment, or 3rd parties, relying on the decision without an explanation as to why it is correct would be at a ...


14

This is the well known Trolley Problem. As Ben N said, people disagree on the right course of action for trolley problem scenarios, but it should be noted that with self-driving cars, reliability is so high that these scenarios are really unlikely. So, not much effort will be put into the problems you are describing, at least in the short term.


14

Although OCR is now a mainstream technology, it remains true that none our methods genuinely have the recognition facilities of a 5 year old (claimed success with CAPTCHAs notwithstanding). We don't know how to achieve this using well-understood techniques, so OCR should still rightfully be considered an AI problem. To see why this might be so, it is ...


14

Another similar question might be: "What vulnerabilities does an AI have?" "Kill" may not make as much sense with respect to an AI. What we really want to know is, relative to some goal, in what ways can that goal be subverted? Can a paradox subvert an agent's logic? What is a paradox, other than some expression that subverts some kind of expected behavior?...


14

I'm going to assume that by free will, you mean something like the philosophical concept of libertarian free will, which is defended by philosophers like Robert Kane. In Libertarian Free Will, individuals have some capability to make choices about their actions. The classic way to argue this is by assuming some kind of spirit-stuff (e.g. a soul) that exists ...


14

Short term Physical accidents, e.g. due to industrial machinery, aircraft autopilot, self-driving cars. Especially in the case of unusual situations such as extreme weather or sensor failure. Typically an AI will function poorly under conditions where it has not been extensively tested. Social impacts such as reducing job availability, barriers for the ...


13

In the real world, decisions will be made based on the law, and as noted over on Law.SE, the law generally favors inaction over action.


13

It's a possible side effect Any goal-oriented agent might, well, simply do things that achieve its goals while disregarding side effects that don't matter for these goals. If my goals include a tidy living space, I may transform my yard to a nice, flat lawn or pavement while wiping out the complex ecosystem of life that was there before, because I don't ...


12

Lately with my Google searches, the AI model keeps auto filling the ending of my searches with: “...in Vietnamese” I can see how this would be annoying. I don't think Google's auto-complete algorithm and training data is publicly available. Also it changes frequently as they work to improve the service. As such, it is hard to tell what exactly is ...


12

TL;DR: The subtleties of infinity are made apparent in the notion of unboundedness. Unboundedness is finitely definable. "Infinite things" are really things with unbounded natures. Infinity is best understood not as a thing but as a concept. Humans theoretically possess unbounded abilities not infinite abilities (eg to count to any arbitrary number as ...


11

The answer to this question, unlike many on this board, I think is definitive. No. We don't need AI's to have emotion to be useful, as we can see by the numerous amount of AI's we already have that are useful. But to further address the question, we can't really give AI's emotions. I think the closest we can get would be 'Can we make this AI act in a way a ...


11

No-one knows. Why: because it's not possible to formally determine even whether your fellow human beings are actually conscious (they may instead be what is philosophically termed a 'Zombie'). No test known to modern physics suffices to decide. Hence it's possible that you are the only sentient being, and everyone else is a robot. Consequently, we cannot ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible