Tag Archives: AI

How Lumpy AI Services?

Long ago people like Marx and Engels predicted that the familiar capitalist economy would naturally lead to the immiseration of workers, huge wealth inequality, and a strong concentration of firms. Each industry would be dominated by a main monopolist, and these monsters would merge into a few big firms that basically run, and ruin, everything. (This is somewhat analogous to common expectations that military conflicts naturally result in one empire ruling the world.)

Many intellectuals and ordinary people found such views quite plausible then, and still do; these are the concerns most often voiced to justify redistribution and regulation. Wealth inequality is said to be bad for social and political health, and big firms are said to be bad for the economy, workers, and consumers, especially if they are not loyal to our nation, or if they coordinate behind the scenes.

Note that many people seem much less concerned about an economy full of small firms populated by people of nearly equal wealth. Actions seem more visible in such a world, and better constrained by competition. With a few big privately-coordinating firms, in contrast, who knows that they could get up to, and they seem to have so many possible ways to screw us. Many people either want these big firms broken up, or heavily constrained by presumed-friendly regulators.

In the area of AI risk, many express great concern that the world may be taken over by a few big powerful AGI (artificial general intelligence) agents with opaque beliefs and values, who might arise suddenly via a fast local “foom” self-improvement process centered on one initially small system. I’ve argued in the past that such sudden local foom seems unlikely because innovation is rarely that lumpy.

In a new book-length technical report, Reframing Superintelligence: Comprehensive AI Services as General Intelligence, Eric Drexler makes a somewhat similar anti-lumpiness argument. But he talks about task lumpiness, not innovation lumpiness. Powerful AI is safer if it is broken into many specific services, often supplied by separate firms. The task that each service achieves has a narrow enough scope that there’s little risk of it taking over the world and killing everyone in order to achieve that task. In particular, the service of being competent at a task is separate from the service of learning how to become competent at that task. In Drexler’s words: Continue reading "How Lumpy AI Services?" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

How Does Brain Code Differ?

The Question

We humans have been writing “code” for many decades now, and as “software eats the world” we will write a lot more. In addition, we can also think of the structures within each human brain as “code”, code that will also shape the future.

Today the code in our heads (and bodies) is stuck there, but eventually we will find ways to move this code to artificial hardware. At which point we can create the world of brain emulations that is the subject of my first book, Age of Em. From that point on, these two categories of code, and their descendant variations, will have near equal access to artificial hardware, and so will compete on relatively equal terms to take on many code roles. System designers will have to choose which kind of code to use to control each particular system.

When designers choose between different types of code, they must ask themselves: which kinds of code are more cost-effective in which kinds of applications? In a competitive future world, the answer to this question may be the main factor that decides the fraction of resources devoted to running human-like minds. So to help us envision such a competitive future, we should also ask: where will different kinds of code work better? (Yes, non-competitive futures may be possible, but harder to arrange than many imagine.)

To think about which kinds of code win where, we need a basic theory that explains their key fundamental differences. You might have thought that much has been written on this, but alas I can’t find much. I do sometimes come across people who think it obvious that human brain code can’t possibly compete well anywhere, though they rarely explain their reasoning much. As this claim isn’t obvious to me, I’ve been trying to think about this key question of which kinds of code wins where. In the following, I’ll outline what I’ve come up with. But I still hope someone will point me to useful analyses that I’ve missed.

In the following, I will first summarize a few simple differences between human brain code and other code, then offer a deeper account of these differences, then suggest an empirical test of this account, and finally consider what these differences suggest for which kinds of code will be more cost-effective where. Continue reading "How Does Brain Code Differ?" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , , ,

Avoiding Blame By Preventing Life

If morality is basically a package of norms, and if norms are systems for making people behave, then each individual’s main moral priority becomes: to avoid blame. While the norm system may be designed to on average produce good outcomes, when that system breaks then each individual has only weak incentives to fix it. They mainly seek to avoid blame according to the current broken system. In this post I’ll discuss an especially disturbing example, via a series of four hypothetical scenarios.

1. First, imagine we had a tech that could turn ordinary humans into productive zombies. Such zombies can still do most jobs effectively, but they no longer have feelings or an inner life, and from the outside they also seem dead inside, lacking passion, humor, and liveliness. Imagine that someone proposed to use this tech on a substantial fraction of the human population. That is, they propose to zombify those who do jobs that others see as boring, routine, and low status, like collecting garbage, cleaning bedpans, or sweeping floors. As in this scenario living people would be turned into dead zombies, this proposal would probably be widely seen as genocide, and soundly rejected.

2. Second, imagine someone else proposes the following variation: when a new child of a parent seems likely enough to grow up to take such a low status job, this zombie tech is applied very early to the fetus. So no non-zombie humans are killed, they are just prevented from existing. Zombie kids are able to learn and eventually learn to do those low status. Thus technically this is not genocide, though it could be seen as the extermination of a class. And many parents would suffer from losing their chance to raise lively humans. Whoever proposed all this is probably considered evil, and their proposal rejected.

3. Third, imagine combining this proposal with another tech that can reliably induce identical twins. This will allow the creation of extra zombie kids. That is, each birth to low status parents is now of identical twins, one of which is an ordinary kid, and the other is a zombie kid. If parent’s don’t want to raise zombie kids, some other organization will take over that task. So now the parents get to have all their usual lively kids, and the world gains a bunch of extra zombie kids who grow up to do low status jobs. Some may support this proposal, but surely many others will find it creepy. I expect that it would be pretty hard to create a political consensus to support this proposal.

While in the first scenario people were killed, and in the second scenario parents were deprived, this third scenario is designed to take away these problems. But this third proposal still has two remaining problems. First, if we have a choice between creating an empty zombie and a living feeling person who finds their life worth living, this second option seems to result in a better world. Which argues against zombies. Second, if zombies seem like monsters, supporters of this proposal might might be blamed for creating monsters. And as the zombies look a lot like humans, many will see you as a bad person if you seem inclined to or capable of treating them badly. It looks bad to be willing to create a lower class, and to treat them like a disrespected lower class, if that lower class looks a lot like humans. So by supporting this third proposal, you risk being blamed.

4. My fourth and last scenario is designed to split apart these two problems with the third scenario, to make you choose which problem you care more about. Imagine that robots are going to take over most all human jobs, but that we have a choice about which kind of robot they are. We could choose human-like robots, who act lively with passion and humor, and who inside have feelings and an inner life. Or we could choose machine-like robots, who are empty inside and also look empty on the outside, without passion, humor, etc.

If you are focused on creating a better world, you’ll probably prefer the human-like robots, as that which choice results in more creatures who find their lives worth living. But if you are focused on avoiding blame, you’ll probably prefer the machine-like robots, as few will blame you for for that choice. In that choice the creatures you create look so little like humans that few will blame you for creating such creatures, or for treating them badly.

I recently ran a 24 hour poll on Twitter about this choice, a poll to which 700 people responded. Of those who make a choice, 77% picked the machine-like robots:

Maybe my Twitter followers are unusual, but I doubt that a majority of a more representative poll would pick the human-like option. Instead, I think most people prefer the option that avoids personal blame, even if it makes for a worse world.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

How Deviant Recent AI Progress Lumpiness?

I seem to disagree with most people working on artificial intelligence (AI) risk. While with them I expect rapid change once AI is powerful enough to replace most all human workers, I expect this change to be spread across the world, not concentrated in one main localized AI system. The efforts of AI risk folks to design AI systems whose values won’t drift might stop global AI value drift if there is just one main AI system. But doing so in a world of many AI systems at similar abilities levels requires strong global governance of AI systems, which is a tall order anytime soon. Their continued focus on preventing single system drift suggests that they expect a single main AI system.

The main reason that I understand to expect relatively local AI progress is if AI progress is unusually lumpy, i.e., arriving in unusually fewer larger packages rather than in the usual many smaller packages. If one AI team finds a big lump, it might jump way ahead of the other teams.

However, we have a vast literature on the lumpiness of research and innovation more generally, which clearly says that usually most of the value in innovation is found in many small innovations. We have also so far seen this in computer science (CS) and AI. Even if there have been historical examples where much value was found in particular big innovations, such as nuclear weapons or the origin of humans.

Apparently many people associated with AI risk, including the star machine learning (ML) researchers that they often idolize, find it intuitively plausible that AI and ML progress is exceptionally lumpy. Such researchers often say, “My project is ‘huge’, and will soon do it all!” A decade ago my ex-co-blogger Eliezer Yudkowsky and I argued here on this blog about our differing estimates of AI progress lumpiness. He recently offered Alpha Go Zero as evidence of AI lumpiness:

I emphasize how all the mighty human edifice of Go knowledge … was entirely discarded by AlphaGo Zero with a subsequent performance improvement. … Sheer speed of capability gain should also be highlighted here. … you don’t even need self-improvement to get things that look like FOOM. … the situation with AlphaGo Zero looks nothing like the Hansonian hypothesis and a heck of a lot more like the Yudkowskian one.

I replied that, just as seeing an unusually large terror attack like 9-11 shouldn’t much change your estimate of the overall distribution of terror attacks, nor seeing one big earthquake change your estimate of the overall distribution of earthquakes, seeing one big AI research gain like AlphaGo Zero shouldn’t much change your estimate of the overall distribution of AI progress. (Seeing two big lumps in a row, however, would be stronger evidence.) In his recent podcast with Sam Harris, Eliezer said:

Y: I have claimed recently on facebook that now that we have seen Alpha Zero, Alpha Zero seems like strong evidence against Hanson’s thesis for how these things necessarily go very slow because they have to duplicate all the work done by human civilization and that’s hard. …

H: What’s the best version of his argument, and then why is he wrong?

Y: Nothing can prepare you for Robin Hanson! Ha ha ha. Well, the argument that Robin Hanson has given is that these systems are still immature and narrow, and things will change when they get general. And my reply has been something like, okay, what changes your mind short of the world actually ending. If your theory is wrong do we get to find out about that at all before the world does.

(Sam didn’t raise the subject in his recent podcast with me.)

In this post, let me give another example (beyond two big lumps in a row) of what could change my mind. I offer a clear observable indicator, for which data should have available now: deviant citation lumpiness in recent ML research. One standard measure of research impact is citations; bigger lumpier developments gain more citations that smaller ones. And it turns out that the lumpiness of citations is remarkably constant across research fields! See this March 3 paper in Science:

The citation distributions of papers published in the same discipline and year lie on the same curve for most disciplines, if the raw number of citations c of each paper is divided by the average number of citations c0 over all papers in that discipline and year. The dashed line is a lognormal fit. …

The probability of citing a paper grows with the number of citations that it has already collected. Such a model can be augmented with … decreasing the citation probability with the age of the paper, and a fitness parameter, unique to each paper, capturing the appeal of the work to the scientific community. Only a tiny fraction of papers deviate from the pattern described by such a model.

It seems to me quite reasonable to expect that fields where real research progress is lumpier would also display a lumpier distribution of citations. So if CS, AI, or ML research is much lumpier than in other areas, we should expect to see that in citation data. Even if your hypothesis is that only ML research is lumpier, and only in the last 5 years, we should still have enough citation data to see that. My expectation, of course, is that recent ML citation lumpiness is not much bigger than in most research fields through history.

Added 24Mar: You might save the hypothesis that research areas vary greatly in lumpiness by postulating that the number of citations of each research advance goes as the rank of the “size” of that advance, relative to its research area. The distribution of ranks is always the same, after all. But this would be a surprising outcome, and hence seems unlikely; I’d want to see clear evidence that the distribution of lumpiness of advances varies greatly across fields.

Added 27Mar: More directly relevant might be data on distributions of patent value and citations. Do these distributions vary by topic? Are CS/AI/ML distributed more unequally?

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Reply to Christiano on AI Risk

Paul Christiano was one of those who encouraged me to respond to non-foom AI risk concerns. Here I respond to two of his posts he directed me to. The first one says we should worry about the following scenario:

Imagine using [reinforcement learning] to implement a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) which maximizes its profit. .. to outcompete human organizations at a wide range of tasks — producing and selling cheaper widgets, but also influencing government policy, extorting/manipulating other actors, and so on.

The shareholders of such a DAO may be able to capture the value it creates as long as they are able to retain effective control over its computing hardware / reward signal. Similarly, as long as such DAOs are weak enough to be effectively governed by existing laws and institutions, they are likely to benefit humanity even if they reinvest all of their profits.

But as AI improves, these DAOs would become much more powerful than their human owners or law enforcement. And we have no ready way to use a prosaic AGI to actually represent the shareholder’s interests, or to govern a world dominated by superhuman DAOs. In general, we have no way to use RL to actually interpret and implement human wishes, rather than to optimize some concrete and easily-calculated reward signal. I feel pessimistic about human prospects in such a world. (more)

In a typical non-foom world, if one DAO has advanced abilities, then most other organizations, including government and the law, have similar abilities. So such DAOs shouldn’t find it much easier to evade contracts or regulation than do organizations today. Thus humans can be okay if law and government still respect human property rights or political representation. Sure it might be hard to trust such a DAO to manage your charity, if you don’t trust it to judge who is in most need. But you might trust it much to give you financial returns on your financial investments in it.

Paul Christiano’s second post suggests that the arrival of AI arrives will forever lock in the distribution of patient values at that time:

The distribution of wealth in the world 1000 years ago appears to have had a relatively small effect—or more precisely an unpredictable effect, whose expected value was small ex ante—on the world of today. I think there is a good chance that AI will fundamentally change this dynamic, and that the distribution of resources shortly after the arrival of human-level AI may have very long-lasting consequences. ..

Whichever values were most influential at one time would remain most influential (in expectation) across all future times. .. The great majority of resources are held by extremely patient values. .. The development of machine intelligence may move the world much closer to this naïve model. .. [Because] the values of machine intelligences can (probably, eventually) be directly determined by their owners or predecessors. .. it may simply be possible to design a machine intelligence who exactly shares their predecessor’s values and who can serve as a manager. .. the arrival of machine intelligence may lead to a substantial crystallization of influence .. an event with long-lasting consequences. (more)

That is, Christiano says future AI won’t have problems preserving its values over time, nor need it pay agency costs to manage subsystems. Relatedly, Christiano elsewhere claims that future AI systems won’t have problems with design entrenchment:

Over the next 100 years greatly exceeds total output over all of history. I agree that coordination is hard, but even spending a small fraction of current effort on exploring novel redesigns would be enough to quickly catch up with stuff designed in the past.

A related claim, that Christiano supports to some degree, is that future AI are smart enough to avoid suffers from coordination failures. They may even use “acasual trade” to coordinate when physical interaction of any sort is impossible!

In our world, more competent social and technical systems tend to be larger and more complex, and such systems tend to suffer more (in % cost terms) from issues of design entrenchment, coordination failures, agency costs, and preserving values over time. In larger complex systems, it becomes harder to isolate small parts that encode “values”; a great many diverse parts end up influencing what such systems do in any given situation.

Yet Christiano expects the opposite for future AI; why? I fear his expectations result more from far view idealizations than from observed trends in real systems. In general, we see things far away in less detail, and draw inferences about them more from top level features and analogies than from internal detail. Yet even though we know less about such things, we are more confident in our inferences! The claims above seem to follow from the simple abstract description that future AI is “very smart”, and thus better in every imaginable way. This is reminiscent of medieval analysis that drew so many conclusions about God (including his existence) from the “fact” that he is “perfect.”

But even if values will lock in when AI arrives, and then stay locked, that still doesn’t justify great efforts to study AI control today, at least relative to the other options of improving our control mechanisms in general, or saving resources now to spend later, either on studying AI control problems when we know more about AI, or just to buy influence over the future when that comes up for sale.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Tegmark’s Book of Foom

Max Tegmark says his new book, Life 3.0, is about what happens when life can design not just its software, as humans have done in Life 2.0, but also its hardware:

Life 1.0 (biological stage) evolves its hardware and software
Life 2.0 (cultural stage) evolves its hardware, designs much of its software
Life 3.0 (technological stage): designs its hardware and software ..
Many AI researchers think that Life 3.0 may arrive during the coming century, perhaps even during our lifetime, spawned by progress in AI. What will happen, and what will this mean for us? That’s the topic of this book. (29-30)

Actually, its not. The book says little about redesigning hardware. While it says interesting things on many topics, its core is on a future “singularity” where AI systems quickly redesign their own software. (A scenario sometimes called “foom”.)

The book starts out with a 19 page fictional “scenario where humans use superintelligence to take over the world.” A small team, apparently seen as unthreatening by the world, somehow knows how to “launch” a “recursive self-improvement” in a system focused on “one particular task: programming AI Systems.” While initially “subhuman”, within five hours it redesigns its software four times and becomes superhuman at its core task, and so “could also teach itself all other humans skills.”

After five more hours and redesigns it can make money by doing half of the tasks at Amazon Mechanical Turk acceptably well. And it does this without having access to vast amounts of hardware or to large datasets of previous performance on such tasks. Within three days it can read and write like humans, and create world class animated movies to make more money. Over the next few months it goes on to take over the news media, education, world opinion, and then the world. It could have taken over much faster, except that its human controllers were careful to maintain control. During this time, no other team on Earth is remotely close to being able to do this.

Tegmark later explains: Continue reading "Tegmark’s Book of Foom" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Can Human-Like Software Win?

Many, perhaps most, think it obvious that computer-like systems will eventually be more productive than human-like systems in most all jobs. So they focus on how humans might maintain control, even after this transition. But this eventuality is less obvious than it seems, depending on what exactly one means by “human-like” or “computer-like” systems. Let me explain.

Today the software that sits in human brains is stuck in human brain hardware, while the other kinds of software that we write (or train) sit in the artificial hardware that we make. And this artificial hardware has been improving rapidly far more rapidly than has human brain hardware. Partly as a result of this, systems of artificial software and hardware have been improving rapidly compared to human brain systems.

But eventually we will find a way to transfer the software from human brains into artificial hardware. Ems are one way to do this, as a relatively direct port. But other transfer mechanics may be developed.

Once human brain software is in the same sort of artificial computing hardware as all the other software, then the relative productivity of different software categories comes down to a question of quality: which categories of software tend to be more productive on which tasks?

Of course there will many different variations available within each category, to match to different problems. And the overall productivity of each category will depend both on previous efforts to develop and improve software in that category, and also on previous investments in other systems to match and complement that software. For example, familiar artificial software will gain because we have spent longer working to match it to familiar artificial hardware, while human software will gain from being well matched to complex existing social systems, such as language, firms, law, and government.

People give many arguments for why they expect human-like software to mostly lose this future competition, even when it has access to the same hardware. For example, they say that other software could lack human biases and also scale better, have more reliable memory, communicate better over wider scopes, be easier to understand, have easier meta-control and self-modification, and be based more directly on formal abstract theories of learning, decision, computation, and organization.

Now consider two informal polls I recently gave my twitter followers:

Surprisingly, at least to me, the main reason that people expect human-like software to lose is that they mostly expect whole new categories of software to appear, categories quite different from both the software in the human brain and also all the many kinds of software with which we are now familiar. If it comes down to a contest between human-like and familiar software categories, only a quarter of them expect human-like to lose big.

The reason I find this surprising is that all of the reasons that I’ve seen given for why human-like software could be at a disadvantage seem to apply just as well to familiar categories of software. In addition, a new category must start with the disadvantages of having less previous investment in that category and in matching other systems to it. That is, none of these are reasons to expect imagined new categories of software to beat familiar artificial software, and yet people offer them as reasons to think whole new much more powerful categories will appear and win.

I conclude that people don’t mostly use specific reasons to conclude that human-like software will lose, once it can be moved to artificial hardware. Instead they just have a general belief that the space of possible software is huge and contains many new categories to discover. This just seems to be the generic belief that competition and innovation will eventually produce a lot of change. Its not that human-like software has any overall competitive disadvantage compared to concrete known competitors; it is at least as likely to have winning descendants as any such competitors. Its just that our descendants are likely to change a lot as they evolve over time. Which seems to me a very different story than the humans-are-sure-to-lose story we usually hear.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Foom Justifies AI Risk Efforts Now

Years ago I was honored to share this blog with Eliezer Yudkowsky. One of his main topics then was AI Risk; he was one of the few people talking about it back then. We debated this topic here, and while we disagreed I felt we made progress in understanding each other and exploring the issues. I assigned a much lower probability than he to his key “foom” scenario.

Recently AI risk has become something of an industry, with far more going on than I can keep track of. Many call working on it one of the most effectively altruistic things one can possibly do. But I’ve searched a bit and as far as I can tell that foom scenario is still the main reason for society to be concerned about AI risk now. Yet there is almost no recent discussion evaluating its likelihood, and certainly nothing that goes into as much depth as did Eliezer and I. Even Bostrom’s book length treatment basically just assumes the scenario. Many seem to think it obvious that if one group lets one AI get out of control, the whole world is at risk. It’s not (obvious).

As I just revisited the topic while revising Age of Em for paperback, let me try to summarize part of my position again here. Continue reading "Foom Justifies AI Risk Efforts Now" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Better Babblers

You can think of knowing how to write as knowing how to correlate words. Given no words, what first word should you write. Then given one word, what second word best correlates with that. Then given two words, what third word best fits with those two. And so on. Thus your knowledge of how to write can be broken into what you know at these different correlation orders: one word, two words, three words, and so on. Each time you pick a new word you can combine knowledge at these different orders, by weighing all their different recommendations for your next word.

This correlation order approach can also be applied at different scales. For example, given some classification of your first sentence, what kind of second sentence should follow? Given a classification of your first chapter, what kind of second chapter should follow? Many other kinds of knowledge can be similarly broken down into correlation orders, at different scales. We can do this for music, paintings, interior decoration, computer programs, math theorems, and so on.

Given a huge database, such as of writings, it is easy to get good at very low orders; you can just use the correlation frequencies found in your dataset. After that, simple statistical models applied to this database can give you good estimates for correlations to use at somewhat higher orders. And if you have enough data (roughly ten million examples per category I’m told) then recently popular machine learning techniques can improve your estimates at a next set of higher orders.

There are some cases where this is enough; either you can get enormous amounts of data, or learning low order correlations well is enough to solve your problem. These cases include many games with well defined rules, many physical tasks where exact simulations are feasible, and some kinds of language translation. But there are still many other cases where this is far from enough to achieve human level proficiency. In these cases an important part of what we know can be described as very high order correlations produced by “deep” knowledge structures that aren’t well reduced to low order correlations.

After eighteen years of being a professor, I’ve graded many student essays. And while I usually try to teach a deep structure of concepts, what the median student actually learns seems to mostly be a set of low order correlations. They know what words to use, which words tend to go together, which combinations tend to have positive associations, and so on. But if you ask an exam question where the deep structure answer differs from answer you’d guess looking at low order correlations, most students usually give the wrong answer.

Simple correlations also seem sufficient to capture most polite conversation talk, such as the weather is nice, how is your mother’s illness, and damn that other political party. Simple correlations are also most of what I see in inspirational TED talks, and when public intellectuals and talk show guests pontificate on topics they really don’t understand, such as quantum mechanics, consciousness, postmodernism, or the need always for more regulation everywhere. After all, media entertainers don’t need to understand deep structures any better than do their audiences.

Let me call styles of talking (or music, etc.) that rely mostly on low order correlations “babbling”. Babbling isn’t meaningless, but to ignorant audiences it often appears to be based on a deeper understanding than is actually the case. When done well, babbling can be entertaining, comforting, titillating, or exciting. It just isn’t usually a good place to learn deep insight.

As we slowly get better at statistics and machine learning, our machines will slowly get better at babbling. The famous Eliza chatbot went surprisingly far using very low order correlations, and today chatbots best fool us into thinking they are human when they stick to babbling style conversations. So what does a world of better babblers look like?

First, machines will better mimic low quality student essays, so schools will have to try harder to keep such students from using artificial babblers.

Second, the better machines get at babbling, the more humans will try to distinguish themselves from machines via non-babbling conversational styles. So expect less use of simple easy-to-understand-and-predict speech in casual polite conversation, inspirational speeches, and public intellectual talk.

One option is to put a higher premium on talk that actually makes deep sense, in terms of deep concepts that experts understand. That would be nice for those of us who have always emphasized such things. But alas there are other options.

A second option is to put a higher premium on developing very distinctive styles of talking. This would be like how typical popular songs from two centuries ago could be sung and enjoyed by most anyone, compared to how popular music today is matched in great detail to the particular features of particular artists. Imagine most all future speakers having as distinct a personal talking style.

A third option is more indirect, ironic, and insider style talk, such as we tend to see on Twitter today. People using words and phrases and cultural references in ways that only folks very near in cultural space can clearly accept as within recent local fashion. Artificial babblers might not have enough data to track changing fashions in such narrow groups.

Bottom line: the more kinds of conversation styles that simple machines can manage, the more humans will try to avoid talking in those styles, a least when not talking to machines.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Brains Simpler Than Brain Cells?

Consider two possible routes to generating human level artificial intelligence (AI): brain emulation (ems) versus ordinary AI (wherein I lump together all the other usual approaches to making smart code). Both approaches require that we understand something well enough to create a functional replacement for it. Ordinary AI requires this for entire brains, while ems require this only for brain cells.

That is, to make ordinary AI we need to find algorithms that can substitute for most everything useful that a human brain does. But to make brain emulations, we need only find models that can substitute for what brain cells do for brains: take input signals, change internal states, and then send output signals. (Such brain cell models need not model most of the vast complexity of cells, complexity that lets cells reproduce, defend against predators, etc.)

To make an em, we will also require brain scans at a sufficient spatial and chemical resolution, and enough cheap fast parallel computers. But the difficulty of achieving these other requirements scales with the difficulty of modeling brain cells. The simpler brain cells are, the less detail we’ll need to scan, and the smaller computers we’ll need to emulate them. So the relative difficulty of ems vs ordinary AI mainly comes down to the relative model complexity of brain cells versus brains.

Today we are seeing a burst of excitement about rapid progress in ordinary AI. While we’ve seen such bursts every decade or two for a long time, many people say “this time is different.” Just as they’ve done before; for a long time the median published forecast has said human level AI will appear in thirty years, and the median AI researcher surveyed has said forty years. (Even though such people estimate 5-10x slower progress in their subfield in the past twenty years.)

In contrast, we see far less excitement now about about rapid progress in brain cell modeling. Few neuroscientists publicly estimate brain emulations soon, and no one has even bothered to survey them. Many take these different levels of hype and excitement as showing that in fact brains are simpler than brain cells – we will more quickly find models and algorithms that substitute for brains than we will those that can substitute for brain cells.

Now while it just isn’t possible for brains to be simpler than brain cells, it is possible for our best models that substitute for brains to be simpler than our best models that substitute for brain cells. This requires only that brains be far more complex than our best models that substitute for them, and that our best models that substitute for brain cells are not far less complex than such cells. That is, humans will soon discover a solution to the basic problem of how to construct a human-level intelligence that is far simpler than the solution evolution found, but evolution’s solution is strongly tied to its choice of very complex brain cells, cells whose complexity cannot be substantially reduced via clever modeling. While evolution searched hard for simpler cheaper variations on the first design it found that could do the job, all of its attempts to simplify brains and brain cells destroyed the overall intelligence that it sought to maintain.

So maybe what the median AI researcher and his or her fans have in mind is that the intelligence of the human brain is essentially simple, while brain cells are essentially complex. This essential simplicity of intelligence view is what I’ve attributed to my ex-co-blogger Eliezer Yudkowsky in our foom debates. And it seems consistent with a view common among fast AI fans that once AI displaces humans, AIs would drop most of the distinctive features of human minds and behavior, such as language, laughter, love, art, etc., and also most features of human societies, such as families, friendship, teams, law, markets, firms, nations, conversation, etc. Such people tend to see such human things as useless wastes.

In contrast, I see the term “intelligence” as mostly used to mean “mental betterness.” And I don’t see a good reason to think that intelligence is intrinsically much simpler than betterness. Human brains sure look complex, and even if big chucks of them by volume may be modeled simply, the other chunks can contain vast complexity. Humans really do a very wide range of tasks, and successful artificial systems have only done a small range of those tasks. So even if each task can be done by a relatively simple system, it may take a complex system to do them all. And most of the distinctive features of human minds and societies seem to me functional – something like them seems useful in most large advanced societies.

In contrast, for the parts of the brain that we’ve been able to emulate, such as parts that process the first inputs of sight and sound, what brain cells there do for the brain really does seem pretty simple. And in most brain organs what most cells do for the body is pretty simple. So the chances look pretty good that what most brain cells do for the brain is pretty simple.

So my bet is that brain cells can be modeled more simply than can entire brains. But some seem to disagree.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,