very interesting article. Morals and ethics are not universally shared I feel. the development of AI would be no different. I have often said that Children are the ultimate AI. You can provide the best education, inculcate them with morals , ethics and so on. YET I does not guarantee a favourable outcome . Why would AI be any different.
Having said that, there are 5 groups of people who invariably get things wrong: economists , meteorologists , computer modellers , politicians, and doomsayers .
in re climate change(see doomsayers), Rev Malthus is alive and well. Human ingenuity and adaptablitity are ALWAY discounted from the equation
Thanks Mr Baldwin. you have been missed . I hope the philosophy forum will begin again
Every generation, every year, even every day, represents a “hinge-point” in history: today is always the first day of our future (and the last day of our past). Forget about the next million years – just thinking about our next generation’s challenges raises countless headaches, with the changes taking place right now. And surely, anyone with an even moderate awareness of history would know that the future is unpredictable (apart from “death and taxes”), as it always has been. Many of our present-day prophets seem to have been too deeply immersed in sci-fi and computer games to understand the practical limitations of the real world. Musk’s idea of settling Mars is bordering on psychosis (we already know he’s a megalomaniac) – he thinks we’ll be able to radically transform an alien planet’s environment to support human life, while we can’t even preserve a perfectly liveable ecosphere here. Seeing his business activities are in no small part contributing to our environmental degradation, perhaps his thinking is partly drive by guilt (were he capable of such feeling)?
While transformative technologies have helped solve (and postpone) some serious challenges for humanity, they have inevitably facilitated the further growth of human populations, creating even greater problems. And they all seem to require growing amounts of energy. But hoping for international cooperation for their solutions encounters a fundamental contradiction: we have evolved for life in small, hunter-gatherer groups, yet are now forced to work closely together on a planetary scale, suppressing small-group¸ even individual, interests for the benefit of the global collective. How realistic is that? There are good evolutionary reasons for the high prevalence of the “dark triad” in human groups, where manipulative, narcissistic psychopaths habitually emerge to attain positions of influence and control in most large-sale human endeavours, such as running governments, or big corporations. How to deal with that will always be a stumbling block.
It's unlikely that Homo sapiens is at risk of soon becoming extinct, but its prospects of sustaining massive populations as at present, are diminishing fast, and growing rather bleak; the cull, when it comes, will be grotesque. I don’t think it will be climate change, but rather the constraints on food production and distribution which will prove the ultimate limiting factor (there go our cities). Forget AI: it needs far too much energy, and someone can always pull the plug. In the real long term, biology will always prevail over technology (autocrats take note: “while there’s death, there’s hope”). Human populations will drop to levels that can survive in a degraded biosphere with technology that requires low energy input – a sort-of neo-hunter-scavenger economy, probably living in small groups again. Sorry to be so nihilistic, but it’s what age does, at least to some of us.
On a practical point: given the rapid advances in undersea monitoring technology, how sensible is it for us to be planning to acquire N-subs “some time in the future”, when killer drones are likely to be developed soon (if not already) that will render manned submarines obsolete?
Peter, a great article and one that is very thought provoking. I look forward to receiving those that follow on. One aspect within the article that contains a similraity to an opinion piece you wrote several years back, related to the possible use of AI to detect submarines. It would be interesting if you could enter into a debate with somebody who is in the AUKUS chain to ask them about this concern given that the country will "invest" some $350 billion over the next 30 years on these subs...assuming the deal goes to completion which is a big question mark imo.
Very interesting Peter. I do wonder what people imagine Artificial intelligence to be. Is it about just solving problems , which we set for it? If we have a free roving AI capable of conceiving of all sorts of interesting problems (as defined by its own standards???) . And consequently might not such a powerful AI simply be in error and choose to strive to solve insoluable problems, because their knowldege base was too limited and/or that its interests were too idiosycratic? Cannot AI be fallible and/or foolish in its chosen focii? And yes, if we were to be so stupid enough to allow it access to systems that imperil human life, and it could do as it wished ? Well we would appear to deserve what we get..! We might end up , to AI, just another failed experiment which it lost interest in.
very interesting article. Morals and ethics are not universally shared I feel. the development of AI would be no different. I have often said that Children are the ultimate AI. You can provide the best education, inculcate them with morals , ethics and so on. YET I does not guarantee a favourable outcome . Why would AI be any different.
Having said that, there are 5 groups of people who invariably get things wrong: economists , meteorologists , computer modellers , politicians, and doomsayers .
in re climate change(see doomsayers), Rev Malthus is alive and well. Human ingenuity and adaptablitity are ALWAY discounted from the equation
Thanks Mr Baldwin. you have been missed . I hope the philosophy forum will begin again
Every generation, every year, even every day, represents a “hinge-point” in history: today is always the first day of our future (and the last day of our past). Forget about the next million years – just thinking about our next generation’s challenges raises countless headaches, with the changes taking place right now. And surely, anyone with an even moderate awareness of history would know that the future is unpredictable (apart from “death and taxes”), as it always has been. Many of our present-day prophets seem to have been too deeply immersed in sci-fi and computer games to understand the practical limitations of the real world. Musk’s idea of settling Mars is bordering on psychosis (we already know he’s a megalomaniac) – he thinks we’ll be able to radically transform an alien planet’s environment to support human life, while we can’t even preserve a perfectly liveable ecosphere here. Seeing his business activities are in no small part contributing to our environmental degradation, perhaps his thinking is partly drive by guilt (were he capable of such feeling)?
While transformative technologies have helped solve (and postpone) some serious challenges for humanity, they have inevitably facilitated the further growth of human populations, creating even greater problems. And they all seem to require growing amounts of energy. But hoping for international cooperation for their solutions encounters a fundamental contradiction: we have evolved for life in small, hunter-gatherer groups, yet are now forced to work closely together on a planetary scale, suppressing small-group¸ even individual, interests for the benefit of the global collective. How realistic is that? There are good evolutionary reasons for the high prevalence of the “dark triad” in human groups, where manipulative, narcissistic psychopaths habitually emerge to attain positions of influence and control in most large-sale human endeavours, such as running governments, or big corporations. How to deal with that will always be a stumbling block.
It's unlikely that Homo sapiens is at risk of soon becoming extinct, but its prospects of sustaining massive populations as at present, are diminishing fast, and growing rather bleak; the cull, when it comes, will be grotesque. I don’t think it will be climate change, but rather the constraints on food production and distribution which will prove the ultimate limiting factor (there go our cities). Forget AI: it needs far too much energy, and someone can always pull the plug. In the real long term, biology will always prevail over technology (autocrats take note: “while there’s death, there’s hope”). Human populations will drop to levels that can survive in a degraded biosphere with technology that requires low energy input – a sort-of neo-hunter-scavenger economy, probably living in small groups again. Sorry to be so nihilistic, but it’s what age does, at least to some of us.
On a practical point: given the rapid advances in undersea monitoring technology, how sensible is it for us to be planning to acquire N-subs “some time in the future”, when killer drones are likely to be developed soon (if not already) that will render manned submarines obsolete?
Looks interesting, Peter. Happy to follow.
Thank you Peter
I shall look forward to a continuing reflection on current issues and trends via the various and very different contributors
An informed view about AI, without the hype:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcWwGijXVc
A terrific idea Peter. I look forward to reading the article and receiving your Friday newsletters. Keep up the good work!
Peter, a great article and one that is very thought provoking. I look forward to receiving those that follow on. One aspect within the article that contains a similraity to an opinion piece you wrote several years back, related to the possible use of AI to detect submarines. It would be interesting if you could enter into a debate with somebody who is in the AUKUS chain to ask them about this concern given that the country will "invest" some $350 billion over the next 30 years on these subs...assuming the deal goes to completion which is a big question mark imo.
Very interesting Peter. I do wonder what people imagine Artificial intelligence to be. Is it about just solving problems , which we set for it? If we have a free roving AI capable of conceiving of all sorts of interesting problems (as defined by its own standards???) . And consequently might not such a powerful AI simply be in error and choose to strive to solve insoluable problems, because their knowldege base was too limited and/or that its interests were too idiosycratic? Cannot AI be fallible and/or foolish in its chosen focii? And yes, if we were to be so stupid enough to allow it access to systems that imperil human life, and it could do as it wished ? Well we would appear to deserve what we get..! We might end up , to AI, just another failed experiment which it lost interest in.
Thank you Peter for a very readable piece about an incredibly important topic. I look forward to more. I was wondering what happened to Blackheath.
Excellent piece Peter. Congratulations on newsletter initiative — I look forward to future installments.