An A.I. arms race might cause researchers or sponsors to commit a number of inadvisable actions. These sorts of political concepts are discussed well in Bostrom’s book, Superintelligence: Path, Dangers, Strategies, but can be summed up as follows:
Due to the fact that moderate and fast takeoffs are more likely than slow ones, any project that achieves it’s goals is likely to gain a decisive strategic advantage over other projects, meaning they lose.
Thus, if a given project is not in the lead, it might start lessening it’s safety protocol in favor of speed (not to mention standard cloak and dagger actions, or even militaristic scenarios). Is not good, gets extinction.
Due to the fact that moderate and fast takeoffs are more likely than slow ones,
That’s a big assumption.
Thus, if a given project is not in the lead, it might start lessening it’s safety protocol in favor of speed (not to mention standard cloak and dagger actions, or even militaristic scenarios). Is not good, gets extinction.
Nobody desires extinction, and nobody is better off if extinction comes form their own AI project rather than the AI project of somebody else, hence there is no tragedy of the commons scenario. People are not going to make an AI capable of causing major disasters without being reasonable sure that they can control it.
Nobody desires extinction, and nobody is better off if extinction comes form their own AI project rather than the AI project of somebody else, hence there is no tragedy of the commons scenario.
Extinction is much more costly to society as a whole than to any individual (especially if we count future unborn people). For example a purely selfish individual might value the cost of extinction the same as their own death (which is on average around $10 million as estimated by how much you have to pay people to compensate for increasing their risk of death). For society as a whole this cost is at least quadrillions of dollars if not astronomically more. So selfish individuals would be willing to take much bigger extinction risks than is socially optimal, if doing so provides them with private benefits. This is a tragedy of the commons scenario.
In the slow takeoff scenario, I think a similar tragedy of the commons dynamic is likely to play out. If humanity as a whole could coordinate and wait until we fully solve the AI control / value alignment problem before creating autonomous AIs, then humane values could eventually control all or most of the universe. But instead we’re likely to create such AIs as soon as we can extract private benefits (fame, prestige, profit, etc.) from creating them. Once we do, they’ll take over larger and larger share of the economy and eventually the universe. (Nobody currently owns the universe, so again it’s a classic commons.)
For example a purely selfish individual might value the cost of extinction the same as their own death (which is on average around $10 million as estimated by how much you have to pay people to compensate for increasing their risk of death). For society as a whole this cost is at least quadrillions of dollars if not astronomically more. So selfish individuals would be willing to take much bigger extinction risks than is socially optimal, if doing so provides them with private benefits. This is a tragedy of the commons scenario.
But a single purely selfish individual is unlikely to create a competitive AI project. For a medium-large organization made of people who care at least of their own life and the life of their kin the cost of extinction will be so high that it will offset any benefits that they may hope to obtain.
For a medium-large organization made of people who care at least of their own life and the life of their kin the cost of extinction will be so high that it will offset any benefits that they may hope to obtain.
If we consider a simple model where eventually the potential benefit of launching an AGI grows steadily with time, while the risk steadily drops, at some point the expected benefit will exceed the expected cost, and someone will launch an AGI. But because the private cost of extinction is only a small fraction of the social cost, even for a large organization, they will do this much sooner than they should.
Also consider that an organization is made up of individuals, and suffers from internal coordination problems. Take a company of a million employees, how many actually have a say in when the AGI gets launched?
See also this relevant recent article, about how “Putin is acting out of an apparent belief that increasing the nuclear threat to Europe, and as a result to his own country, is ultimately good for Russia and worth the risks. It is a gamble with the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans, and perhaps many beyond, at stake.” How did we get so close to nuclear war, during the Cold War, and again now, if large organizations (whole countries, in this case) would never risk extinction in the hope of obtaining private benefits?
But a single purely selfish individual is unlikely to create a competitive AI project.
Suppose you’re right about large organizations being more responsible than I think they would be, then they’ll be holding off on launching AGI even when they have the capability to do so. At some point though that capability will filter down to smaller organizations and individuals. Maybe even immediately, if hardware is cheap by that point, and the last steps are purely algorithmic.
If we consider a simple model where eventually the potential benefit of launching an AGI grows steadily with time, while the risk steadily drops, at some point the expected benefit will exceed the expected cost, and someone will launch an AGI. But because the private cost of extinction is only a small fraction of the social cost, even for a large organization, they will do this much sooner than they should.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
Yes, private organizations or national governments make decisions that are less socially optimal compared to a super-competent world-government ruled by a benevolent dictator that has somehow solved the interpersonal preferences comparison problem. That’s not a motte I will try to attack. But it seems to me that you are actually trying to defend the bailey that private organizations or national governments will engage in an arms race to launch a potentially dangerous AI as soon as they could disregarding reasonable safety concerns. This positions seems less defensible.
Suppose you’re right about large organizations being more responsible than I think they would be, then they’ll be holding off on launching AGI even when they have the capability to do so. At some point though that capability will filter down to smaller organizations and individuals. Maybe even immediately, if hardware is cheap by that point, and the last steps are purely algorithmic.
Expect government regulation.
Also note that the same argument can be made for nuclear power, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons. In principle individuals or small groups could build them, and there have been perhaps one instance of bioweapon attack (the 2001 anthrax mail attacks in the US) and a few instances of chemical attacks. But all of them were inefficient and ultimately caused little damage. In practice it seems that the actual expertise and organizational capabilities required to pull such things to a significant scale are non-trivial.
AI may be quite similar in this regard: even without malicious intent, going from research papers and proof-of-concept systems to a fully operational system capable of causing major damage will probably require significant engineering efforts.
1.) I was drawing from the book, and that reading is the only exposure I have that particular dynamic of the intelligence explosion. Moderate takeoff prediction times range from months to years. Slow would be decades, or centuries.
2.) I agree with you, and further it seems all parties heading the field are taking steps to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen.
Deviation point: When you mentioned arms races, I suppose I imagined the groups that were secretive about their progress; competing. Though I suppose this issue isn’t likely to be an either/or case in terms of collaboration vs. competition.
My comment was fueled by a perception that group considerations, like arms races, have considerations in the forming of safety, rather than just assuming they would occur after the control problem has been dealt with. Not implying that is what you indeed assumed.
An A.I. arms race might cause researchers or sponsors to commit a number of inadvisable actions. These sorts of political concepts are discussed well in Bostrom’s book, Superintelligence: Path, Dangers, Strategies, but can be summed up as follows:
Due to the fact that moderate and fast takeoffs are more likely than slow ones, any project that achieves it’s goals is likely to gain a decisive strategic advantage over other projects, meaning they lose.
Thus, if a given project is not in the lead, it might start lessening it’s safety protocol in favor of speed (not to mention standard cloak and dagger actions, or even militaristic scenarios). Is not good, gets extinction.
That’s a big assumption.
Nobody desires extinction, and nobody is better off if extinction comes form their own AI project rather than the AI project of somebody else, hence there is no tragedy of the commons scenario.
People are not going to make an AI capable of causing major disasters without being reasonable sure that they can control it.
Extinction is much more costly to society as a whole than to any individual (especially if we count future unborn people). For example a purely selfish individual might value the cost of extinction the same as their own death (which is on average around $10 million as estimated by how much you have to pay people to compensate for increasing their risk of death). For society as a whole this cost is at least quadrillions of dollars if not astronomically more. So selfish individuals would be willing to take much bigger extinction risks than is socially optimal, if doing so provides them with private benefits. This is a tragedy of the commons scenario.
In the slow takeoff scenario, I think a similar tragedy of the commons dynamic is likely to play out. If humanity as a whole could coordinate and wait until we fully solve the AI control / value alignment problem before creating autonomous AIs, then humane values could eventually control all or most of the universe. But instead we’re likely to create such AIs as soon as we can extract private benefits (fame, prestige, profit, etc.) from creating them. Once we do, they’ll take over larger and larger share of the economy and eventually the universe. (Nobody currently owns the universe, so again it’s a classic commons.)
But a single purely selfish individual is unlikely to create a competitive AI project. For a medium-large organization made of people who care at least of their own life and the life of their kin the cost of extinction will be so high that it will offset any benefits that they may hope to obtain.
If we consider a simple model where eventually the potential benefit of launching an AGI grows steadily with time, while the risk steadily drops, at some point the expected benefit will exceed the expected cost, and someone will launch an AGI. But because the private cost of extinction is only a small fraction of the social cost, even for a large organization, they will do this much sooner than they should.
Also consider that an organization is made up of individuals, and suffers from internal coordination problems. Take a company of a million employees, how many actually have a say in when the AGI gets launched?
See also this relevant recent article, about how “Putin is acting out of an apparent belief that increasing the nuclear threat to Europe, and as a result to his own country, is ultimately good for Russia and worth the risks. It is a gamble with the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans, and perhaps many beyond, at stake.” How did we get so close to nuclear war, during the Cold War, and again now, if large organizations (whole countries, in this case) would never risk extinction in the hope of obtaining private benefits?
Suppose you’re right about large organizations being more responsible than I think they would be, then they’ll be holding off on launching AGI even when they have the capability to do so. At some point though that capability will filter down to smaller organizations and individuals. Maybe even immediately, if hardware is cheap by that point, and the last steps are purely algorithmic.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
Yes, private organizations or national governments make decisions that are less socially optimal compared to a super-competent world-government ruled by a benevolent dictator that has somehow solved the interpersonal preferences comparison problem. That’s not a motte I will try to attack.
But it seems to me that you are actually trying to defend the bailey that private organizations or national governments will engage in an arms race to launch a potentially dangerous AI as soon as they could disregarding reasonable safety concerns. This positions seems less defensible.
Expect government regulation.
Also note that the same argument can be made for nuclear power, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons.
In principle individuals or small groups could build them, and there have been perhaps one instance of bioweapon attack (the 2001 anthrax mail attacks in the US) and a few instances of chemical attacks. But all of them were inefficient and ultimately caused little damage. In practice it seems that the actual expertise and organizational capabilities required to pull such things to a significant scale are non-trivial.
AI may be quite similar in this regard: even without malicious intent, going from research papers and proof-of-concept systems to a fully operational system capable of causing major damage will probably require significant engineering efforts.
1.) I was drawing from the book, and that reading is the only exposure I have that particular dynamic of the intelligence explosion. Moderate takeoff prediction times range from months to years. Slow would be decades, or centuries.
2.) I agree with you, and further it seems all parties heading the field are taking steps to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen.
Deviation point: When you mentioned arms races, I suppose I imagined the groups that were secretive about their progress; competing. Though I suppose this issue isn’t likely to be an either/or case in terms of collaboration vs. competition.
My comment was fueled by a perception that group considerations, like arms races, have considerations in the forming of safety, rather than just assuming they would occur after the control problem has been dealt with. Not implying that is what you indeed assumed.