AI Oinks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being employed in increasingly widening applications these days—often when an enormous amount of data needs to be sifted and analyzed. AI uses machine learning algorithms to program computers, which then teach themselves how to make sense of all the reams of information.

Now comes yet another (barnyard) use of AI, from researchers at the University of  Copenhagen, in Denmark, who have been studying how to decipher the various sounds emitted by pigs. The researchers do this in order to understand the animals’ feelings and emotions. 

We humans take pride in knowing that our language is more complex than any other creature, yet we do not have the last word in communications. Other critters may not possess the ability to emit the intricate sounds we do, but they do very well in communicating, as they often supplement sounds with visual clues, smells, and even taste. For example, trees possess a multi-faceted and sophisticated means of transferring information to each other through chemicals emitted and received through leaves and roots.

Our porcine friends also use various senses other than hearing (such as sight and smell) for sending their messages, but the Danish study focused just on their sounds—oinks, sniffles, grunts, and squeals. Pigs' behaviors were observed, as sound recordings were made. The goal was to relate their emotions to their grunts. The pigs were observed both on the farm and in the laboratory. They were placed in positive circumstances to promote positive emotions—such as suckling mom, playing with their mates, being reunited with family, etc. Negative situations to induce negative emotions included fights, castration, and waiting in the abattoir. (That last one sure is negative!)

From thousands of recordings and observations of hundreds of pigs in various circumstances, the AI analysis went to work, to discern what consistent vocal messages they were relaying. In general, when pigs are in positive situations, they emit short grunts, with very little difference in amplitude. When they are stressed, they tend to call out with high-pitched squeals. (Did it take all the computing power of AI to learn that?)

The hope of the Danish researchers is to help people who work with pigs to better understand their complex oinks and grunts, both to monitor their well being and to encourage better treatment on farms. A healthier pig is a happier pig... and tastes better. When these AI studies eventually get expanded to other domestic animals, it could lead to their improved psychological well being, as well. If farmers learn to treat their animals better, maybe fewer of them would be killed for food. Wouldn't it be hard to slaughter a happy pig who was joyously oinking about the barnyard?

Reproducing Robots

About 100 years ago the word robot was coined. Its origin is a Czech word, robota, which means “forced labor.” In the ensuing century, the definition of the term robot has evolved (thanks to the use of computers) from a machine that behaves as a slave, to an entity that can act autonomously and intelligently by performing complex tasks. In fact, with the advent of artificial intelligence, some people now speculate that we may be on the verge of creating robots that are far smarter than humans, and may soon turn the tables and enslave us!

Robots running amok is a fear that, by dint of unleashed technology, we may about to uncork a machine-like Pandora's Box, by taking an unwise step that will lead to future ominous problems. That possibility has created countless science fiction tales which suggest that our human future may contain many battles with robots who rebel and try to defeat us. One of the most famous depictions was a series of novels by Isaac Asimov, who expanded upon the Czech origin of robot, to coin the term robotics in 1941. Asimov conceived of his three laws of robotics—that would prohibit robots from harming human beings. His assurances, however, have not mitigated the fear in some people’s minds that robots may eventually rebel and some day take over.

Now comes the possibility from a scientific collaboration between teams from the UK and Netherlands, that robots may soon breed and evolve. That idea takes these machines ever closer to human-like capabilities—maybe even enclosing them within the realm of what we call life. Yikes! That's too close to Frankenstein's creation of a “living being” from dead body parts... and we know the troubles caused by that creature.

So can a robot ever attain the qualities of evolving and being “alive”? Biology defines life as exhibiting about six features: (1) a complex assembly of “living” cells, (2) able to respond to diverse stimuli, (3) reproduction, (4) self-regulation, to respond to its environment, (5) possessing homeostasis—to maintain critical internal conditions and balances, and (6) processing energy, to carry on its metabolic activities.

Maybe those 100-year-old robots were simple programmed machines, but today's robots feature most of these characteristics of life. For example, the UK and Dutch researchers' robotic technology is able to spawn (birth?) offspring that receive a transplanted “brain” (in the form of software) from their “parents,” which contain inherited traits.

These robots employ artificial intelligence, which guides that inheritance, so as to optimize certain capabilities for specific missions that we are as yet unable to comprehend. Is this some form of robotic evolution—an evolution in which they can control themselves, and pass traits on to future robotic generations? Are we opening a Pandora's Box, from which super robots will soon breed and become god-like beings? Asimov, we may need your robotic laws to protect us.

AI Art

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a hot topic these days. I have posted several blogs on the subject, because I find it fascinating. We are moving toward a future in which AI will be playing an increasing role in human society. That role is something being eagerly awaited by some people and feared by others. 

Those who are enthusiastic, look forward to smart machines that will do boring jobs faster and better than any human can, machines that will speedily accomplish complex computational calculations, will discover new and remarkable things, will drive cars and pilot airplanes far more safely than humans, and will take on dangerous activities that threaten the safety of people. A bright future is the promise of Ai enthusiasts.

Those who are apprehensive—even downright fearful—of AI worry about good jobs (even those requiring university education) being appropriated by machines. Others are concerned that deep-learning AI computers that write their own science fiction-like algorithms are beginning to do things their human creators don't fully understand. The designers are being left behind, as the machines race off into states of advanced capabilities that are, at the very least, rather intimidating. Some people worry that these super-intelligent AI machines at some point might become hostile to humans and begin to turn against us… and even eliminate us, if they have become that superior.

Either extreme described above is quite unlikely to happen. Time will reveal the outcome. AI holds great promise, as it simultaneously poses a potential threat. How it will turn out will be largely determined by how cautious innovators are. History tends to show, however, that many technological innovations have turned out to become dangerous, because precaution was ignored while they were being developed.

Let’s turn to another, more benign, area in which AI is making inroads: the arts. Some fascinating—if not always creative—music compositions, visual compositions, and even literature have been produced by computers. Some people would take issue over calling AI art creative; and of course, creativity—as well as art—is in the eye of the beholder. That issue will likely be dealt with, as AI art develops.

Several interesting questions are raised by AI art. Is the process and its product something done solely by a machine, or is it a kind of collaboration between computer and human? Is art more properly considered to be a form of communication done only between humans—maybe moderated or enhanced by a machine—but in the end, confined to some form of human-to-human connection? In other words, does meaningful art have to come from one organic mind and then be conveyed to another organic mind? 

Could we tell if a story or song was composed by a computer, or might the “art” seem overly mechanical? On the other hand, if it was good, would weS care? Can AI be truly creative, or is it destined to be forever imitative—just shuffling around human ideas and coming up with new combinations? 

Again, the future will provide us answers. Will AI become increasingly human-like or will we humans become increasingly machine-like? Will people and machines merge someday into some kind of conscious, self-aware robot?

SETI Reset—Part 3: Simulation Hypothesis (11/19/19)

There is yet another possibility that might explain why our SETI searches have so far been unsuccessful. The lack of contact could be the result of what’s been dubbed the Simulation Hypothesis, which has been proposed in recent decades. It results from our spectacular advances in computer technology. The basic idea is that our technological innovation seems to be leading towards a point in time when we will be able to create, not only artificial intelligence (AI), but artificial life as well!

This is a bizarre thought that I will attempt to sketch out here, in a simplified form. There is a concept called Moore's Law—which was proposed some 50 years ago by Gordon Moore, a computer geek. It suggests that computer power doubles every couple of years—yielding smaller and smaller computer chips using less and less electrical power. Over recent decades Moore's Law has held. If it continues to hold, we may reach a point, in something like 50-60 years, where our computers will be complex and fast enough that we'll be able to simulate the human brain in the digital world. We already have created deep-learning software programs that have badly beaten the world's human geniuses in chess, Jeopardy!, and Go. The next leap is to mimic the capabilities of the human brain. It's only a matter of time. 

The huge advantage of creating artificial life is that we'd be able to produce and employ an entity as smart—or smarter—than our brain, at a tiny fraction of the required energy. This is due to a byproduct of Moore's Law: as we continue to multiply computing power, it comes at decreasing needs for energy. To keep a human being going requires a lot of energy. We need calories to fuel our big bodies and our brain is an energy hog. If we could develop the equivalent amount of brain power at a tiny fraction of the energy cost, how could we refuse such a bargain?

Our haste to expand computing power also posits an alternative, though much less desirable outcome of our technological race into the future: the strong likelihood that we'll destroy ourselves, before we reach the technological maturity of being able to simulate life. Many philosophers and scientists think that in our headlong rush to develop our technological prowess, we may well make ourselves go extinct. We seem to insist on playing with dangerous machines, with minimal ability to rein ourselves in. We've already perched at the edge of nuclear annihilation, several times.

Thus the Simulation Hypothesis brings up the possibility—if we survive—that we may someday be able to create a non-biological world that will mimic intelligence. It will be contained wholly within the confines of a digital simulation. In fact, what we are convinced is our real biological existence may simply be that we've been living in such a simulated world all along. Those advanced civilizations that SETI is looking for may have arrived long ago and programmed us. We may be nothing more than artificial entities in some highly-intelligent superbeing's game. The movie “The Matrix” suggests such a possibility.

This thought of our living out some kind of virtual digital life seems preposterous to us. Do we not know that we are flesh-and-blood critters? But how do we know that? Some of the sharpest scientific minds have suggested the virtual possibility. Stephen Hawking and Alan Turing pondered it. Plato suggested something similar in his “allegory of the cave,” 2,500 years ago. Nick Bostrom of Oxford University formally presented the Simulation Hypothesis, nearly two decades ago.

Here’s yet another question: If we are not an electronic simulation, but real, flesh-and-blood beings as we think we are, could our current biological existence be just a step on the way to a post-biological type of digital life? That possibility may become proven or denied in just a few decades. Whatever we learn, our current SETI communication attempts may continue to go unanswered, until a deeper understanding arrives. We are yet infants in the advanced technological world. We have a lot to learn and a lot of control to develop, if we wish to stick around to see.

One Female's Feat

A recent article in the Guardian described how a computer-savvy woman perfected an artificial intelligence (AI) program to deal with a growing problem on the internet. For some strange reason an increasing number of women are receiving what are called “dick pix.” These are photos emailed to them of a penis—supposedly that of the sender. These pix are often startling, shocking, and most often unwelcome to the women.

I won't try here to guess what's behind this trend. It's as mystifying and bizarre to me as are many practices on today's social media. The anonymity offered by the internet seems to encourage a certain type of person to say and do offensive things that they'd probably restrain from doing, face to face.

This lady decided she'd had enough of dick pix sent her way—she'd opened up her email or Instagram or Facebook account a few times too often, to see a gross photo. She was disgusted at this practice. So she sent out an invitation on the internet for anyone (presumably mostly men) to send her photos of their genitalia. She then used the many kinds of penile pictures she collected to train an AI program to recognize what they were—rather than, say, a handsome eggplant—and to immediately delete them.

In time, her AI program achieved 95% accuracy at expunging dick pix on Instagram. Wouldn't many women agreeably download such an app, which would allow them to turn on their smartphones without cringing? Those few women who enjoyed the prurient pix could simply reject the app and continue their titillating tradition.

This lady's remarkable accomplishment brings two thoughts to my mind: the first is that she refutes the common assumption that most computer geeks are male. She is evidence to the contrary.

The second thought is more a question: If a lone (female) wolf can accomplish this AI feat, what's holding back Facebook, Instagram, and Google from achieving something similar? Their computer geeks are legion and they've repeatedly demonstrated their astounding AI accomplishments. Many people who use these social media—including governmental authorities—have demanded that they do something to counter or check the various internet attacks launched by nefarious characters, with a definite lack of response on the part of the tech giants.

In what appears to be one meaningless response, Facebook has described how it formed a group of people whose job is to monitor online postings, in order to block the more offensive ones. These poor Facebook folks are known to suffer from the trauma of viewing despicable postings, day after day. Is this the best that Facebook can do—distressing and depressing a bunch of loyal employees? Where is their amazing skill at creating software algorithms? How is it that one woman can show them up? Could it be a lack of passion on their part? Their passion—and accomplishments—seem to be more aligned at making money from ads, rather than protecting their users.

Curtailed Cognition—Part 2

Let's return to humanity's dumbing down because of air pollution. What long-term consequences may result, if we do little to clean up our air? We already know that modern humans are dumber than our Cro-Magnon ancestors, who roamed Earth tens of thousands of years ago. Well, maybe not necessarily dumber, but their brains were at least 10% larger than ours. They probably needed to be smart in their environment, which had many more threats than ours. Today we don't need their smarts, because we've tamed our world. We no longer have to deal with the large predators they faced, or, for most of us, the threat of food shortages.

It's a fact that evolution kicks in when environmental circumstances change. Species adapt when their environment transforms. The brain is a very expensive organ to maintain. In humans, it sucks up some 30% of the energy we generate. If we can decrease the size of our brain and not suffer any consequences—say, because we live in a less risky world—then it makes sense for evolution to do so. All of humanity's domesticated animals—cattle, sheep, pigs—are dumber than their wild counterparts. Through breeding we've made them safe and tame...and less intelligent.

So an argument can be made that today we do not need the smarts we once did. In fact, you don't have to look far into modern culture for ample evidence that many people do not use all that much of their cognitive abilities anyway. So let the brain deteriorate a little; it doesn't require much intelligence to veg out on the couch in front of the TV, or compose 140-character Tweets.

There's yet another reason why we could let our cognition curtail a little, without suffering the consequences: our rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI). We already have computers that are far smarter than we are at certain narrowly-defined tasks, such as chess—let alone all the lightning-speed calculations they do. We soon may develop what's called artificial general intelligence (AGI), which will outsmart us in most every area. We can get dumber and dumber and live easier and easier, thanks to robots. It makes me wonder if we will one day willingly enter the Matrix, where we do nothing but live in our heads. Matrix living is the ultimate easy “life.”

Will your average person even care if his cognition is curtailed? Studies have shown that the actual amount of money that one makes is not nearly as important as how it compares to his neighbor's earnings. Keep his salary low and he won't complain, if his cohorts are making the same; but give his neighbor a raise and he'll howl loudly and long. So, if everyone is as dumb as everyone else, will it matter to anyone?

Nobody knows where this is going. We can't predict the future. What's more, we seem to be disinclined to do much about it, even if we can see the threat. It's so much easier to maintain the status quo... it's much less demanding.

A final question that speaks to me: Which is more important, to keep my brain from deteriorating any more, or fully use the cognitive power I've got? It is a shame to own a fine musical instrument, but never develop the skill to play it. Is it instead maybe better to own a mediocre instrument that I've learned to play well? It seems to me that many people already squander much of the cognitive capability they possess.

AI Goes to Mars

Six years ago NASA gently lowered the rover Curiosity into Mars' Gale Crater. It was a risky landing, that entailed lowering the rover onto the surface from a sky crane that slowly and tenderly deposited Curiosity, disconnected from it, and then flew off at a distance and crashed itself. Every NASA employee—as well as millions around the world—chewed their fingernails, until Curiosity radioed back that it was safely down.

Ever since that ground-breaking day, the rover has wandered about Gale Crater at the breakneck speed of 0.02 mph (0.03 kph), scooping up soil samples, drilling holes in rocks, and analyzing the compounds found. Its mission is to evaluate Mars' habitability, i.e., could the Red Planet ever have had conditions that would have allowed life to exist there? Can we detect the signs of those conditions today? I have blogged previously that NASA has learned from its 1970s Viking missions not to try to directly measure life on Mars (due to the ambiguity of the measurements), but to simply try to determine if Mars' climate ever was hospitable for life.

Three years ago NASA upgraded the software in Curiosity's computer to give it artificial intelligence (AI) capability, which is presently operable. Thus the rover now can function autonomously, similar to the self-driving cars and trucks currently being tested here on Earth. Prior to this upgrade, Curiosity had to wait for NASA scientists to order its every movement. Humans decided its targets, based on photos taken by the rover, ordered Curiosity to take certain actions, reviewed the results, and then sent the next commands. 
This procedure made for a lot of downtime, as the rover waited for further instructions.

Now with AI, Curiosity can act on its own, much faster and with greater accuracy than before. It gets occasional overall directions from Earth, but attends to all the details on its own. This is similar to the autonomy that self-driving Earth vehicles have, but without the worry that the rover will crash at high speed, or run over any people—as has happened on this planet with autonomous vehicles.

In NASA's typically cautious manner, the upgrade to AI capability was slowly and carefully tested, using an Earthbound twin to Curiosity, that scientists can play with, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. And true to NASA's propensity to generate creative acronyms, the new AI software is called AEGIS*, for Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science. It makes me wonder if NASA may also have an acronym-naming group, possibly called Group of Radical English-Adept Technicians for NASA Acronym Mission Epithets (GREATNAME)? May Curiosity roll on for many more years.

*Aegis is the name of the battle shield of Zeus, and usually refers to the supportive backing given a person or organization.

AI's Outlook—Part 2

Continuing the second of three concerns about artificial intelligence begun last post:

2. Super-intelligence becomes a concern when we develop robots who are far smarter than we are—not just in a narrow sense (such as in chess or Jeopardy!), but in a more general sense. To date, AI's intelligence is narrow—that is, computers exhibit super-intelligence in only one area. But we soon will be seeing machines that exhibit what is called artificial general intelligence (AGI). When that comes about, will AGI decide to control us? Would it even care about us?

Another huge question is what impact AGI will have on human employment. AI already has stepped into mundane jobs (think of assembly line robots), but will soon disemploy many more people. What will we do with the millions of people who will no longer have work, because they've been replaced with robots? Very soon we'll see even rather sophisticated human careers—doctors, lawyers—terminated. We aren't prepared to deal with that problem.

Not a lot of effort is currently being applied to the issue of super-intelligence. Most researchers are rushing into the future, unable or unwilling to deal with this concern. Government barely understands the basics, let alone is currently prepared to address this matter.

3. Consciousness brings up another big question for which we currently have no good responses. Today's AI machines are most likely not conscious. But when—as evermore complex computers are built—will computers become conscious, or even sentient? Will they ever do so? Scientists are still struggling to define consciousness in humans and other life forms, let alone machines.

Is consciousness a continuum or is there a line which consciousness does not cross? Is a newborn baby conscious? A monkey? A tree? A rock? These questions are impossible to answer as we don't even yet know how to measure consciousness.

If AI machines do become conscious—after they become complex enough—will they be able to subjectively experience something? Could they experience pleasure or pain? How would we know? And would robots deserve rights, if they become conscious?

There are many unanswered questions about the future of AI. These machines may be a threat, or they may offer humans some type of salvation. Nobody knows at this point. Unfortunately, too few people—especially those in the public policy arena—are seriously considering these issues. Like so many technological innovations of the past, we may soon be dealing with huge problems, without having looked at the issues before they became problems.

AI's Outlook—Part 1

Artificial intelligence (AI) is upon us. From those primitive programming of computer decision-making capabilities just a few decades ago, we now have software that can beat humans at their most intellectually- and creatively-demanding tasks. Recent programs have shamed human champions at chess, Jeopardy!, and even the complex and ancient Eastern game of Go. Other recent spectacular feats of AI include sophisticated robots and self-driving autonomous vehicles.

These incredibly fast and impressive developments have some people ecstatic at the possibilities of future AI applications and other people frightened at what these smart machines may do. What happens when an AI robot becomes far smarter and stronger than humans? Do we need to fear what they might do to us? So far, AI has proven to be superior to the human brain only at narrowly-defined tasks (such as chess and Go), but what will the future bring?

I have been taking an online course from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. One of their researchers did a fine job of scoping out the future of AI. It's pretty complex and replete with differing interpretations, but here's my try at summarizing what he said.

When considering the future of AI, it helps to understand it by looking at three different issues: (1) autonomy, (2) super intelligence, and (3) consciousness.

1. Autonomy is the ability of robots and AI to do things on their own, without human oversight. That said, autonomy is not a crucial issue on its own, since even the thermostat that regulates your household temperature does it on its own. This is important—it's not the autonomy that's the key, it's what the robot will do, and what control might we have over its actions.

Specifically, the concern about the autonomy of AI comes in when it deals with ethical dilemmas. Will the robot's actions be commensurate with human moral values or not? This question comes into focus when we ponder the choice that a self-driving car would make in an emergency. Will it, for example, decide to prioritize its passengers' welfare or that of pedestrians that are in the vehicle's path? How should the AI software program be designed to appropriately reflect human values? Do we even know what that means?

Self-driving vehicles certainly will drastically reduce the many thousands of highway deaths each year due to driver error or inattentiveness. There's no question about that benefit. But what about that one accident in which an autonomous vehicle made a “bad choice” in our eyes? We've already seen a couple of instances; for example, when a self-driving car killed a pedestrian in Arizona last March.

How do we program AI vehicles? We're a long ways away from knowing how. And who is liable, when a self-driving car causes a death? The vehicle manufacturer? The AI programmer?

This concern about autonomy is significantly greater for AI that is used in military robots and drones. Can an autonomous robot, sent in to a dangerous situation (in which the threat to the lives of military personnel might be avoided), appropriately discern the difference between a crouching enemy with guns and a frightened family that contains several children?

More on AI next time...

Tool Mistreatment

Tools have been of tremendous benefit to humans. From the early use of stone tools (dating back millions of years... even before humans arrived on the scene) to the latest artificial intelligence (AI) machines, tools have enabled us to extend our senses and multiply our physical capabilities far beyond what nature gave us. Those first stone tools brought our ancestors powerful new ways to smash nuts to get at their interior, to cut up meat, to clean animal hides for clothing, and even to fashion other tools.

When those ancestors subsequently learned how to make metal tools, their capabilities dramatically expanded. The later invention of telescopes and microscopes extended our visual capacity out to the stars and into the interior of biological cells. The list is limitless. It extends all the way to today's computers that bring us almost unimaginably powerful capabilities—possibly the most impressive of which is AI.

Human culture would likely have remained on a par with chimpanzees, had we not been able to create this increasingly complex and powerful lineage of tools. A fascinating question that is often posed is how our big brain and our fantastic tools are causally connected. Can we attribute the evolution of our wonderful tools to our capacious cranium, or did our increasingly sophisticated tools demand a bigger brain to use them? It's sort of a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Whatever the answer, modern humans certainly depend on and benefit from our many kinds of tools.

Tools are a form of technology. The definition of a tool is traditionally considered to be a hand-held device, used for a specific type of occupation. In contrast, our modern tools are usually thought of as a form of technology—a word that generally describes machinery or equipment developed from or for scientific purposes. With these definitions, we can see that those primitive hand-held tools gradually morphed into various forms of technology. (Interestingly, the root of the word technology is the Greek word tekhnologle, which means “the systematic creation from art and/or craft.” This craft process seems to me to be exactly how the early stone tools came about.)

Unfortunately, tools and technology have also had a dark side—from the first stone hammer to the latest AI machine. Tools seem to have invited mistreatment from their very beginnings. The same rock that was used to crack a nut also soon got used to crack a human skull. Sharp flaked stone tools that allowed our ancestors to cut up a gazelle also got used as a weapon to cut up other humans. Those primitive metal knives cut meat better than stone, but soon saw use in warfare. And so it went, throughout our evolution.

A current mistreatment of a high-tech tool that billions of people have enjoyed using—Facebook—is causing all kinds of trouble for many people. Facebook is valued for its ability to keep people in instant and handy touch with each other, but there's a dark side to its use that is emerging. Commercial interests use big data algorithms to determine intimate behaviors of Facebook users and then entice them to buy billions of dollars worth of stuff they otherwise would not have bought—without those targeted ads.

Multinational actors use the same intimate data to manipulate people's behaviors through the use of fake news and other biased misinformation. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other online businesses all exploit the power of AI—ostensibly to offer us convenience, but also to amass huge amounts of money by swaying our choices. And of course, many technologists today worry about the future dangers of AI robots—which some fear will either eliminate many current forms of employment or even enslave their creators, us humans.

I am not equipped to explain why it is that Homo sapiens is such a brilliant creator of so many wonderful tools that make our lives so pleasant, but then also get used as one form of weapon or another—weapons which make so many lives miserable, or even terminate them. Philosophers and pious people have pondered and debated that issue for millennia. They have offered many diverse explanations—and most of those explanations clash with each other.

Whatever the cause of human behavior that leads us to mistreat our tools, there certainly are countless examples of how we've perpetually done it. One factor is that we seem to be suckers for the latest technology. Show me a new, convenient and efficacious tool, and I'll want one. Tell me about an attractive technology that's about to be offered, I'll want one. Our initial intentions are rarely wicked; we simply focus on the advantages, and thus we enthusiastically pursue the new tool.

But sooner—rather than later—it seems that someone will find a way to mistreat the new tool; even if they don't deliberately do so. Is it greed? Laziness? Merciless competition? Seeking power over others? Or is it largely due to the fact that we just move too fast, and can't seem to pause and exercise a little precaution? I suppose it's all of these and more.

Yes, tool mistreatment is an ancient bad habit of humans. It's caused untold suffering. And it doesn't appear that we are in the process of reining ourselves in. The scary part is the fact that our tools have become so powerful that their misuse can do damage beyond our control.

Smart Machines—Part 2

Something similar has happened in the field of embodied cognition. People have built robots for a long time, and some of them—especially when they look like a human and sort of act like one—have been very impressive. But again, these robots could do only what their designers had programmed their “brains” to do. 

What was frustrating and limiting was that every action the robot did required enormous computing power—yet those actions were quite simple. If the robot encountered something the scientists had not thought to include in its software, the robot would spectacularly fail. Maybe its designers had cleverly (and very complexly) programmed the robot to walk upstairs, but if it stepped on a marble, it'd tumble over and lie incapacitated. And any robot that accomplished impressive feats required such brainpower that it gulped large quantities of energy and drained its batteries quickly. (Our human brain is an energy hog.)

When researchers realized the finesse, efficiency, and proficiency of EC and began to build robots based on this principle, those robots are taking the next quantum leap into the future. The EC principle allowed them to create robots that move uncannily like humans and other animals, without much computer power and without the need for the robot's “brain” to plan and execute every move.

To watch a video of a robot programmed with EC is rather astonishing—if not also a little eerie. (This link gives you a number of such videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/BostonDynamics). Boston Dynamics has built several of them and has demonstrated how capable and autonomous they are. Take one of these robots outdoors, where it encounters terrain that it's never negotiated before—uneven ground, snow and ice, deep mud—and it does better than a human can. You watch one of the robot's feet slip or get bogged down, and it stumbles, awkwardly pirouettes, but quickly recovers. Another video shows a human researcher sneaking up behind a robot and giving it a violent shove with a stick. The robot stumbles forward, catches its balance, and continues its previous activity.

These amazing accomplishments have researchers very excited and furiously engaged in experiments to improve what these smart machines can do. The future in the fields of AI and EC is nearly upon us. What comes next? What novel accomplishments will we soon see? The promises are both thrilling and sobering—even rather ominous.

For example, what happens when the cognitive abilities of an AI computer exceed those of the human brain? It's only a matter of time. They have already demonstrated the ability to best humans in a few kinds of intelligence tests, but yet still fall quite short of the human brain's overall flexible abilities. That threshold will soon be crossed, however. When it happens, will an AI computer then be able to reason, become self-aware, or even possess consciousness?

These questions interfere with the sleep of some scientists and philosophers. They are worrisome to many people. A few people even fear that computers might take over the world and force us feeble humans to be their slaves. This fear has spawned a few fascinating books and movies. Nobody knows what will happen. What is disconcerting, at the least, is that research is moving quickly forward, with little consideration of where we are going or what precautions should be made. (That's an old story with human technology.)

Something similar might be said about EC robots. Most of the current research in this area is being sponsored by the military. What are their plans for these smart machines? Obviously, these robots will someday perform much more effectively on the battlefield than human soldiers—being stronger, faster, and more invincible. The death of a robot—no matter its price—is far less onerous than the death of a soldier. But what might happen when a platoon of EC robots invades what is believed to be a fortified bunker of enemy soldiers, and finds it instead occupied by a group of cowering women and children? Will these smart machines also have the moral sense to halt their invasion?

Both AI and EC robots promise some wonderful benefits. But like so much technology of the past, what was once seen as a blessing sometimes had a dark side. Are we being careful enough?

Smart Machines—Part 1

There are some amazing advances currently being made in two related scientific fields—both of which are exploring ways to create machines that mimic (and even surpass) human cognitive and physical capabilities. In each area researchers have built robots that exhibit stunning skills. Engineers and scientists have tried for several decades to manufacture robots and computers that are as proficient as human beings, with very little success. In the last few years breakthroughs have occurred.

The two similar fields are artificial intelligence (AI) and embodied cognition (EC). The holy grail for many years in AI has been to create a computer that has cognitive abilities equal to that of the human mind. Computers can process data far faster than the human brain can, but the problem has been figuring out how to program a computer to be able to preform the nimble, parallel processing that the brain does; which allows it to instantly recognize faces, or exhibit impressive learning capabilities. That problem is now being solved.

The second smart machine accomplishment has seen the construction of robots that feature embodied cognition. This breakthrough had to wait until scientists could fully appreciate what EC is. In humans (and most animals) most of the things that we do—walk, breathe, swim, or just move the body—are accomplished without any conscious effort on our part.

Do you consciously think and guide your body through every move, when you walk into the kitchen to get a drink of water? What is required to do so is a long and complex string of interacting movements and nerve signals that pretty much do the job on their own. Otherwise, we'd literally be moving in ultra-slow motion, unable to accomplish but one or two activities in a day's time. What allows us to do so many things and to do them fluidly and quickly is EC—wherein the major part of our brain unconsciously engages in myriad activities, so as to free up our thinking brain to ponder more esoteric things like yesterday's events and planning tomorrow's.

The recent AI computers use what is referred to as “deep learning,” where the computer teaches itself. Earlier attempts at AI used the capabilities of super computers to make lightning-fast computations using incredibly complex software programs, but these machines could only do what the human programmers decided to program into them. If the AI computer encountered a novel situation, it was stumped, because nobody had thought to program that particular scenario.

The algorithms being used in the latest AI computers are far less complex (because they do not need to cover every scenario imaginable), but are fundamentally more flexible—like the human brain. The computer teaches itself. Give it the simple rules of chess or Go or Jeopardy!, and it will teach itself by running millions of practice sessions. It even invents novel moves in these games that a human had never thought of. World champions of these three games have recently been humiliated by AI machines.

More smart machines next time...