Artificial intelligence? Maybe we need artificial stupidity instead. In order to avoid an apocalyptic scenario where machines take over the world, some are suggesting we should limit AI to human-level intelligence.
At least then we鈥檒l stand a fighting chance, says at the University of Louisville, USA.
Although artificial general intelligences 鈥� AIs that can perform any task that a human brain can 鈥� do not yet exist, Yampolskiy thinks planning how to limit their computational abilities and make them behave in ways that are familiar to humans may help avert disaster in the future.
Advertisement
Yampolskiy and his colleague Micha毛l Trazzi at Sorbonne University in Paris suggest constraining AI by introducing 鈥渁rtificial stupidity鈥�. Using rough estimates of the storage space, bandwidth and processing power of the human brain, they聽propose, capping the number of operations per second or restricting the capacity of an AI鈥檚 working memory to comparable levels for the human brain.
However, putting such a cap on a聽machine brain may not work as intended. Humans might not use their processing power optimally, meaning an AI could outmatch us even though it could carry out far fewer operations per second.
Humanlike AI
So two further measures are suggested: ensure the AI is not able to self-improve to make itself more efficient and give it humanlike cognitive biases 鈥� mistakes in reasoning, often made because of deeply held beliefs, that mean we deviate from rational judgement. A machine mind with such foibles might in theory act more like us, allowing us to anticipate its moves better.
Conservatism is one such bias that could be introduced: 鈥渢he [AI] will keep the same initial values鈥�. Courtesy bias is another: 鈥渢he [AI] will try to not offend anyone, avoiding aggressive behaviours鈥�. Humans attempting to constrain such an AI could use their political or social skills to ensure a happy symbiosis with it.
Some of the suggestions make a lot of sense, says at the University of Oxford鈥檚 Future of Humanity Institute. 鈥淭hings like processing limitations could be used to make the AI鈥檚 thinking interpretable 鈥� not enough to cripple it, but to make sure it can鈥檛 get away with things we aren鈥檛 able to follow,鈥� he says.
However, Armstrong questions whether the overall approach that Yampolskiy suggests will be effective in the end. Take the attempt to prevent a highly intelligent AI from improving itself. What is to stop a machine from making a copy of itself that doesn鈥檛 have such a constraint? Then the jig would be up.
And while cognitive biases may be helpful, perhaps we don鈥檛 understand enough about how they exist in human minds yet to know how they could be transported reliably to machines.
Journal reference:
