Michael Vassar Speaks to Yale Students on the Singularity
Coverage from Yale Daily News:
Twenty to 60 years from now, the advent of computers with above-human intelligence could transform civilization as we know it, according to Michael Vassar, president of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. In a talk with around 35 students and faculty members in William L. Harkness Hall on Sunday, Vassar expounded the vision that his institute, featured in a Feb. 10 article in TIME Magazine, is working to make a reality. Known as the “singularity,†this futuristic scenario posits that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence within the next half-century. Once super-intelligent computers exist, they could generate even more intelligent and sophisticated machines, to the extent that humans would lose all control over the future, Vassar said.
“For the most important event in the history of events, it really should get a fair amount of buzz,†he said.
Vassar compared human and chimpanzee intelligence to argue that small changes in a system can represent large leaps in mental capacity. Just as a human is a small evolutionary step from other primates, a super-intelligent computer would be a natural progression as artificial intelligence approaches human intelligence, he said.
Our computers are not as smart as humans yet, but if technological progress continues at its current rate, one could expect to see them in the next 20 to 60 years, Vassar said. Probably the most well-known example of artificial intelligence right now is Watson, an IBM computer that competed alongside humans on the quiz show “Jeopardy!†this month.
Anna Salamon at UKH+: Survival in the Margins of the Singularity?
Anna Salamon is a Research Fellow at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Her work centers on analytical modeling of artificial intelligence risks, probabilistic forecasting, and strategies for human survival. Previously, she conducted machine learning research at NASA Ames, and applied mathematics research at the Rohwer Phage Metagenomics lab.
This talk considers the following question. Suppose powerful artificial intelligences are at some point created. In such a world, would humanity be able to survive by accident, in margins the super-intelligences haven't bothered with, as rats and bacteria survive today?
Many have argued that we could, arguing variously that humans could survive as pets, in wilderness preserves or zoos, or as consequences of the super-intelligences' desire to preserve a legacy legal system. Even in scenarios in which humanity as such doesn't survive, Vernor Vinge, for example, suggests that human-like entities may serve as components within larger super-intelligences, and others suggest that some of the qualities we value, such as playfulness, empathy, or love, will automatically persist in whatever intelligences arise.
This talk will argue that all these scenarios are unlikely. Intelligence allows the re-engineering of increasing portions of the world, with increasing choice, persistence, and reliability. In a world in which super-intelligences are free to choose, historical legacies will only persist if the super-intelligences prefer those legacies to everything else they can imagine.
This lecture was recorded on 29th January 2011 at the UKH+ meeting. For information on further meetings please see:
http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com
Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk Now Available in Chinese
Here the chapter in English, here's the Chinese version.
Michael Vassar’s Talk at Humanity+ @Caltech Conference
Watch live video from TechZulu on Justin.tv
Patri Friedman finishes up his fascinating talk on lifehacking, followed by Michael Vassar on “Networks, Hierarchies and the Vingean Singularityâ€.
Tallinn-Evans Challenge Grant Successful
As many of you probably know, I'm media director for the Singularity Institute, so I like to cross-post important posts from the SIAI blog here. Our challenge grant was a success -- we raised $250,000. I am extremely appreciative to everyone who donated. Without SIAI, humanity would be kind of screwed, because very few others take the challenge of Friendly AI seriously -- at all. The general consensus view on the questions is "Asimov laws, right?" No, not Asimov Laws. Many AI researchers still aren't clear on the fact that Asimov laws were a plot device.
Anyway, here's the announcement:
Thanks to the effort of our donors, the Tallinn-Evans Singularity Challenge has been met! All $125,000 contributed will be matched dollar for dollar by Jaan Tallinn and Edwin Evans, raising a total of $250,000 to fund the Singularity Institute's operations in 2011. On behalf of our staff, volunteers, and entire community, I want to personally thank everyone who donated. Keep watching this blog throughout the year for updates on our activity, and sign up for our mailing list if you haven't yet.
Here's to a better future for the human species.
We are preparing a donor page to provide a place for everyone who donated to share some information about themselves if they wish, including their name, location, and a quote about why they donate to the Singularity Institute. If you would like to be included in our public list, please email me.
Again, thank you. The Singularity Institute depends entirely on contributions from individual donors to exist. Money is indeed the unit of caring, and one of the easiest ways that anyone can contribute directly to the success of the Singularity Institute. Another important way you can help is by plugging us into your networks, so please email us if you want to help.
If you're interested in connecting with other Singularity Institute supporters, we encourage joining our group on Facebook. There are also local Less Wrong meetups in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and London.
Singularity Institute Covered by NPR’s All Things Considered
From today's program:
It's been called "the rapture of the nerds." For some computer experts, the Singularity is the moment when an artificial intelligence learns how to improve itself in an exponential "intelligence explosion." They say it's a bigger threat to puny humans than global warming or nuclear war — and they're trying to figure out how to stop it.
Reading the transcript, it seems like OK coverage.
New Singularity Institute Publications in 2010
Here's the source.
Basic AI Drives and Catastophic Risks (Carl Shulman, 2010)
Coherent Extrapolated Volition: A Meta-Level Approach to Machine Ethics (Nick Tarleton, 2010)
Economic Implications of Software Minds (S. Kaas, S. Rayhawk, A. Salamon and P. Salamon, 2010)
From mostly harmless to civilization-threatening: pathways to dangerous artificial general intelligences (Kaj Sotala, 2010)
Implications of a softwareâ€limited singularity (Carl Shulman, Anders Sandberg, 2010)
Superintelligence does not imply benevolence (Joshua Fox, Carl Shulman, 2010)
Timeless Decision Theory (Eliezer Yudkowsky, 2010)
The above are papers, below are presentations:
How intelligible is intelligence? (Anna Salamon, Stephen Rayhawk, János Kramár, 2010)
Whole Brain Emulation and the Evolution of Superorganisms (Carl Shulman, 2010)
What can evolution tell us about the feasibility of artificial intelligence? (Carl Shulman, 2010)
If you value this research, donate to the Singularity Institute via Paypal, and your donation will be matched. At Less Wrong, various users are announcing the level of their contributions. The user "Rain", who donated $2,700, made a comment at the site about why he donates to SIAI.
Stating the Obvious
I get the feeling that this is what it'd be like if I had a debate with Hugo de Garis.
When people get confused about morality and think in terms of a Great Chain of Being where greater physical/computing power necessarily means better "morality", they are forced to come to "counterintuitive" (to say the least) conclusions like being in favor of the massacre of all humanity. From de Garis' Wikipedia page:
It is these two extreme ideologies which de Garis believes may herald a new world war, wherein one group with a 'grand plan' (the Cosmists) will be rabidly opposed by another which feels itself to be under deadly threat from that plan (the Terrans). The factions, he predicts, may eventually war to the death because of this, as the Terrans will come to view the Cosmists as "arch-monsters" when they begin seriously discussing acceptable risks, and the probabilities of large percentages of Earth-based life going extinct. In response to this, the Cosmists will come to view the Terrans as being reactionary extremists, and will stop treating them and their ideas seriously, further aggravating the situation, possibly beyond reconciliation.
Throughout his book, de Garis states that he is ambivalent about which viewpoint he ultimately supports, and attempts to make convincing cases for both sides. He elaborates towards the end of the book that the more he thinks about it, the more he feels like a Cosmist, because he feels that despite the horrible possibility that humanity might ultimately be destroyed, perhaps inadvertently or at least indifferently, by the artilects, he cannot ignore the fact that the human species is just another link in the evolutionary chain, and must go extinct in their current form anyway, whereas the artilects could very well be the next link in that chain and therefore would be excellent candidates to carry the torch of science and exploration forward into the rest of the universe.
Because there is no fundamental connection between goals and intelligence unless we make it so, we can actually build AIs that are very powerful but respect us "puny" humans. There's no fundamental conflict because there is no mystical, spiritual, metaphysical, unscientific force that nudges powerful beings to automatically look down on less powerful beings, in the same way that there's no mystical force that nudges powerful beings to be especially kind to less powerful beings. The morality of a superintelligence will be a function of its initial conditions. In the highly deterministic environment of a computer chip, a seed AI is free to select only those modifications that it knows won't topple or ruin its entire goal system.
Thinking in terms of a Great Chain of Being, cosmic inevitability, "developmentally predetermined outcomes", and the like, which is very much the view presented in The Singularity is Near, makes it seem like we can take our hands off the driving wheel and everything will turn out just fine. It won't.
Michael Vassar and Michael Anissimov Talk About the Singularity on Supreme Master TV
The full version is here and here; only the first part is on YouTube. This is the best introduction to the Singularity Institute for non-English speakers because of the subtitles in many languages.
The Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge: Our End-of-Year Fundraising Effort
Everything below is cross-posted from the SIAI blog.
Thanks to the generosity of two major donors; Jaan Tallinn, a founder of Skype and Ambient Sound Investments, and Edwin Evans, CEO of the mobile applications startup Quinly, every contribution to the Singularity Institute up until January 20, 2011 will be matched dollar-for-dollar, up to a total of $125,000.
Interested in optimal philanthropy -- that is, maximizing the future expected benefit to humanity per charitable dollar spent? The technological creation of greater-than-human intelligence has the potential to unleash an "intelligence explosion" as intelligent systems design still more sophisticated successors. This dynamic could transform our world as greatly as the advent of human intelligence has already transformed the Earth, for better or for worse. Thinking rationally about these prospects and working to encourage a favorable outcome offers an extraordinary chance to make a difference. The Singularity Institute exists to do so through its research, the Singularity Summit, and public education.
We support both direct engagements with the issues as well as the improvements in methodology and rationality needed to make better progress. Through our Visiting Fellows program, researchers from undergrads to Ph.Ds pursue questions on the foundations of Artificial Intelligence and related topics in two-to-three month stints. Our Resident Faculty, up to four researchers from three last year, pursues long-term projects, including AI research, a literature review, and a book on rationality, the first draft of which was just completed. Singularity Institute researchers and representatives gave over a dozen presentations at half a dozen conferences in 2010. Our Singularity Summit conference in San Francisco was a great success, bringing together over 600 attendees and 22 top scientists and other speakers to explore cutting-edge issues in technology and science.
We are pleased to receive donation matching support this year from Edwin Evans of the United States, a long-time Singularity Institute donor, and Jaan Tallinn of Estonia, a more recent donor and supporter. Jaan recently gave a talk on the Singularity and his life at a entrepreneurial group in Finland. Here's what Jaan has to say about us:
"We became the dominant species on this planet by being the most intelligent species around. This century we are going to cede that crown to machines. After we do that, it will be them steering history rather than us. Since we have only one shot at getting the transition right, the importance of SIAI's work cannot be overestimated. Not finding any organisation to take up this challenge as seriously as SIAI on my side of the planet, I conclude that it's worth following them across 10 time zones."
-- Jaan Tallinn, Singularity Institute donor
Make a lasting impact on the long-term future of humanity today -- make a donation to the Singularity Institute and help us reach our $125,000 goal. For more detailed information on our projects and work, contact us at institute@singinst.org.
Some Singularity Summit 2010 Videos Now Online
Tooby, Goertzel, Yudkowsky & Legg panel: Narrow and General Intelligence from Singularity Institute on Vimeo.
We're starting to upload videos from Singularity Summit 2010 which have been edited. Greg Stock and Ramez Naam are currently being edited and should be uploaded soon, then as many others as we can. Hopefully all should be uploaded in the next two weeks. Singularity Hub has additional coverage.
This was a great conference, and as always my favorite conference to attend. I really think our conference is the best -- we include scientists working on the most groundbreaking work in converging technologies and human enhancement. Pretty soon we'll begin planning for 2011's Singularity Summit. It's a pleasure to work on a conference that actually means something for the future of humanity. The way the world looks in 2100 very much depends on how we make crucial choices in the first half of this century.