It is predicted that artificial general intelligence (short: AI) does constitute an existential risk (short: risk).
Below is a comparison chart that I believe to reflect what AI risk advocates believe about how a general artificial intelligence differs in comparison to a narrow artificial intelligence in how it will behave given the same task.
Comparison Chart: Narrow vs. General Artificial Intelligence
(According to AI risk advocates.)
Narrow artificial intelligence will be denoted NAI and general artificial intelligence GAI.
(1) Is it in principle capable of behaving in accordance with human intention to a sufficient degree?
(2) Under what circumstances does it fail to behave in accordance with human intention?
NAI: If it is broken, where broken stands for a wide range of failure modes such as incorrectly managing memory allocations.
GAI: In all cases in which it is not mathematically proven to be tasked with the protection of, and equipped with, a perfect encoding of all human values or a safe way to obtain such an encoding.
(3) What happens when it fails to behave in accordance with human intention?
NAI: It crashes, freezes or halts. It generally fails in a way that is harmful to its own functioning. If for example an autonomous car fails at driving autonomously it usually means that it will either go into safe-mode and halt or crash.
GAI: It works perfectly well. Superhumanly well. All its intended capabilities are intact except that it completely fails at working as intended in such a way as to destroy all human value in the universe. It will be able to improve itself and capable of obtaining a perfect encoding of human values. It will use those intended capabilities in order to deceive and overpower humans rather than doing what it was intended to do.
(4) What happens if it is bound to use a limited amount of resources, use a limited amount of space or run for a limited amount of time?
NAI: It will only ever do what it was programmed to do. As long as there is no fatal flaw, harming its general functionality, it will work within the defined boundaries as intended.
GAI: It will never do what it was programmed to do and always remove or bypass its intended limitations in order to pursue unintended actions such as taking over the universe.
Personally, I think that the last invention we need ever make is the partnership of human and tool. Paralleling the move from mainframe computers in the 1970s to personal computers today, most AI systems went from being standalone entities to being tools that are used in a human-machine partnership.
Our tools will get ever better as they embody more intelligence. And we will become better as well, able to access ever more information and education. We may hear less about AI and more about IA, that is to say “intelligence amplification”. In movies we will still have to worry about the machines taking over, but in real life humans and their sophisticated tools will move forward together.
I believe that AI risk advocates need to provide a lot of technical details and specific arguments to support the above chart. Arguing by definition alone is insufficient. The behavior outlined above has to be shown not only to be in principle possible but to be a probable result of actual research and development.
What is it that makes a general intelligence, as opposed to a narrow intelligence, behave in such a way as to result in human extinction?
What can be said about a general intelligence that can’t be said about a narrow intelligence such as IBM Watson? Both systems can be interpreted, implicitly, to have a utility function. And even a thermostat could be interpreted to have a terminal goal. Yet a narrow intelligence, an expert system, is characterized to achieve its goal while a generally intelligent agent is characterized to achieve its goal and in addition pursue activities that will cause human extinction.
- Being specific about AI risks
- The Fallacy of Dumb Superintelligence
- Implicit constraints of practical goals
- Taking over the world to compute 1+1
- AI drives vs. practical research and the lack of specific decision procedures