2014年5月4日 星期日

Stephen Hawking: Dismissing artificial intelligence would be a mistake

 

Stephen Hawking: Dismissing artificial intelligence would be a mistake

Scientists say not enough research being done on effects of artificial intelligence.
By Danielle Haynes   |   May 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM   |   5 Comments
Astro physicist Professor Stephen Hawking sits in a garden inspired by his book "a brief history of Time" at the 2010 Chelsea Flower Show in London. The flower show is one of the hottest tickets in the London summer season. UPI/Hugo Philpott
| License Photo
LONDON, May 3 (UPI) -- Stephen Hawking, in an article inspired by the new Johnny Depp flick Transcendence, said it would be the "worst mistake in history" to dismiss the threat of artificial intelligence.In a paper he co-wrote with University at California, Berkeley computer-science professor Stuart Russell, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professors Max Tegmark and Frank Wilczek, Hawking said cited several achievements in the field of artificial intelligence, including self-driving cars, Siri and the computer that won Jeopardy!
"Such achievements will probably pale against what the coming decades will bring," the article in Britain's Independent said.
"Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history," the article continued. "Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks."
The professors wrote that in the future there may be nothing to prevent machines with superhuman intelligence from self-improving, triggering a so-called "singularity."
"One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all," the article said.
"Although we are facing potentially the best or worst thing to happen to humanity in history, little serious research is devoted to these issues outside non-profit institutes such as the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Future of Humanity Institute, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and the Future of Life Institute. All of us should ask ourselves what we can do now to improve the chances of reaping the benefits and avoiding the risks."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2014/05/03/Stephen-Hawking-Dismissing-artificial-intelligence-would-be-a-mistake/7801399141433/#ixzz30kefV5ts

 

Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'

Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks, says a group of leading scientists


With the Hollywood blockbuster Transcendence playing in cinemas, with Johnny Depp and Morgan Freeman showcasing clashing visions for the future of humanity, it's tempting to dismiss the notion of highly intelligent machines as mere science fiction. But this would be a mistake, and potentially our worst mistake in history.
Artificial-intelligence (AI) research is now progressing rapidly. Recent landmarks such as self-driving cars, a computer winning at Jeopardy! and the digital personal assistants Siri, Google Now and Cortana are merely symptoms of an IT arms race fuelled by unprecedented investments and building on an increasingly mature theoretical foundation. Such achievements will probably pale against what the coming decades will bring.
The potential benefits are huge; everything that civilisation has to offer is a product of human intelligence; we cannot predict what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools that AI may provide, but the eradication of war, disease, and poverty would be high on anyone's list. Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history.
Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. In the near term, world militaries are considering autonomous-weapon systems that can choose and eliminate targets; the UN and Human Rights Watch have advocated a treaty banning such weapons. In the medium term, as emphasised by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in The Second Machine Age, AI may transform our economy to bring both great wealth and great dislocation.
Looking further ahead, there are no fundamental limits to what can be achieved: there is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains. An explosive transition is possible, although it might play out differently from in the movie: as Irving Good realised in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, triggering what Vernor Vinge called a "singularity" and Johnny Depp's movie character calls "transcendence".
Johnny Depp plays a scientist who is shot by Luddites in 'Transcendence' (Alcon) Johnny Depp plays a scientist who is shot by Luddites in 'Transcendence' (Alcon)
One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.
So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, "We'll arrive in a few decades," would we just reply, "OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on"? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI. Although we are facing potentially the best or worst thing to happen to humanity in history, little serious research is devoted to these issues outside non-profit institutes such as the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Future of Humanity Institute, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and the Future of Life Institute. All of us should ask ourselves what we can do now to improve the chances of reaping the benefits and avoiding the risks.
Stephen Hawking is the director of research at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge and a 2012 Fundamental Physics Prize laureate for his work on quantum gravity. Stuart Russell is a computer-science professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a co-author of 'Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach'. Max Tegmark is a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the author of 'Our Mathematical Universe'. Frank Wilczek is a physics professor at the MIT and a 2004 Nobel laureate for his work on the strong nuclear force.

 

霍金警告:人工智慧可能為人類帶來滅亡

2014-05-03  13:54 〔本報訊〕英國著名物理學家霍金(Stephen Hawking)發出警告,他認為人工智慧短期的問題是由「誰」操控,長期的問題是人類根本無法操控,甚至替人類帶來滅亡。
  • 英國著名物理學家霍金(Stephen Hawking)警告,人工智慧可能會為人類帶來滅亡。(法新社) 英國著名物理學家霍金(Stephen Hawking)警告,人工智慧可能會為人類帶來滅亡。(法新社)
英國《獨立報》(The Independent)報導,霍金在討論強尼戴普(Johnny Depp)的新電影《全面進化》時提到,人工智慧的發展不僅是人類歷史最重大的事件,但如果人類無法學會如何避免危機,它就會是人類史上「最後」一件重大事件。
霍金指出,人工智慧為人類的生活帶來很大的幫助,如自動駕駛汽車、SIRI、Google Now等,人工智慧還具備消滅戰爭、疾病和貧窮的潛力,但人工智慧卻潛藏巨大風險,「人類正在面對一個不確定的未來」。
霍金憂心,很少人認真研究人工智慧的風險,專家根本就還沒準備好。霍金表示,人工智慧的發展未來可能會超越金融市場、人類研發能力和人類領袖的智慧,甚至研發出人類根本無法想像的武器,「人工智慧發展到極致程度時,人類將​​面臨史上最好或者最壞的事情。」

2014年4月1日 星期二

羅斯福總統 F.D.R..是 Simon 的(決策 試驗)大英雄; 沖淡原來的法官比率,為美國法院注入新血



世界真的不太一樣了

紐約時報一篇

Dreamers and Doers
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Today’s students have heard more about Bill Gates than F.D.R. They thrive on speed, and love to innovate. Not surprising, entrepreneurship education is booming.


小羅斯福總統Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr.是 Simon 的(決策 試驗)大英雄





蘋論:公民憲政會議極重要


馬總統原先想要直接以行政命令宣布《服貿協議》生效,但遭國會和輿論的強烈反對,遂改為交立院審查,但強行逼迫黨籍立委不得逐條審查、不得更改一字,不得退回重啟談判、必須包裹表決,成為激起廣大學運和社運的禍首。

羅斯福推案觸礁

學運成功阻擋了馬當局藐視國會、挑戰憲政、敗壞民主法治以及便宜行事的惡質政治,使台灣在民主退化的懸崖邊被拉了回來,好險!
且讓我們回顧一個類似的例子。1932年羅斯福在大蕭條中當選美國總統,立刻推出「新政」來拯救美國悲慘的經濟,一如馬總統,羅的民主黨也獲得參 眾兩院的多數,形成完全執政,新政的一群法案順利通過國會的表決;可是部分法案卻引發了《憲法》爭議,在最高法院觸礁,羅斯福因勝選所獲得的授權沒發生作 用。
新政主要的支柱之一是國家工業復甦法案,遭最高法院一致通過判決法案第一條違憲:「非常情況或需要非常手段,但……非常情況並不等於創造或擴大 《憲法》權力。」羅斯福接著推出《社會安全法》、《國家勞動關係法》,也都遭到最高法院的挑戰。羅斯福無計可施,「經過深思之後,唯一合憲的改革方 法,……就是給我國法院注入新血」,目的在增加6名新的大法官以沖淡原來的法官共識。

破壞多元化制度

然 而,民調結果只有40%贊成。羅斯福強行把司法重組案送進參院司法委員會,造成高度爭議,最後院會以70對20票退回委員會修改,「最高法院改造」方案撤 銷。國會了解到如果總統能破壞司法獨立,制度內的權力制衡就會瓦解,他們不但會被總統控制,多元政治的保障也蕩然無存。
羅斯福認為爭取立法機關的多數,須讓步太多且曠日廢時,因此訴諸行政命令最方便,但這完全破壞多元化的美國政治制度,所以國會不支持他的「最高法院改造計劃」。《國家為什麼會失敗》的作者說:「羅斯福遭遇的是良性循環的力量。」

修憲討論內閣制

馬 在《服貿協議》上的種種作為,立院拿他沒辦法,大法官不告不理,若非有學生見義勇為,馬會為台灣今後行政的集權獨裁劈開一個便於進出的大洞,以後更無法制 衡總統及行政當局的龐大權力。鑑於此,我們全力支持召開「公民憲政會議」,藉由修憲重新建構政府權力結構,徹底畢其功於一役,包括許多人提出的內閣制也應 納入討論。