Saturday, April 20, 2019
Humanity and Artificial Intelligence: Building The Perfect Beast?
Despite being in the first half of the 21st Century, we still struggle with global famine and poverty, a lack of and access to fresh water, decent minimum healthcare for everyone, as well as the availability of a basic education for those who want it (along with facing off with those who believe that education should be available to just one gender, or race, or class). People still live in cardboard boxes on the streets and scrounge around garbage dumps for their next meal. It seems like some of those old apocalyptic movies like Metropolis, Blade Runner, Logan's Run, and of course, 1984 are more documentary than entertainment.
Certainly we have the technology to take us to the next level in our evolution. We can do things in terms of medicine which were only dreamed of a few years, from molecular research to manipulating genes, creating new organs to facial recognition and security cameras on every corner. Everyone one of us has the sum total of Man's knowledge at their fingertips via the internet. Partially everything that is known is available to us in a instance, and that information grows not just daily or even hourly, but in terms of nanoseconds. We have the ability to shape our future in ways that would have been impossible a few decades ago. But, are we ready for that?
Is it possible that this piece of super advanced technology could figure out for us the best form of government for not just Americans or Russians, or anyone else to live under, but the best government for all of Humanity to live under? Could it do what eons of philosophers, economists, kings, revolutionaries, and statesmen has failed to do? Perhaps this super computer could even work out a system whereby our societies could evolve at a certain pace while at the same time operating in unison.
What sort of political, economic and social system would it come up with I wonder? Although I can hardly imagine it would, but what if it recommended a modern feudalistic form of government much like our current Oligarchy whereby ordinary people are beholden to a few elites? On the other hand, it could come back with something similar to a democratic socialist system by which everyone is required to contribute in order to eat, be provided with housing or even medical care. It could also recommend anarchy as the best form of government, whereby people either cooperate voluntarily in ad hoc groups or simply function on their own and making the best of whatever opportunity presents itself.
I wonder if we, as either a nation or as species would pay any attention to its recommendation. If it came up with something we already had some preconceived bias against, would we reject it out of hand or would be willing to give it go? My guess is that, knowing Man's historical arrogance and failure to learn from past mistakes, we would walk away from it. If it wasn't what we thought it should be, we'd risk going the other way. Besides, no doubt our "cyber-savior" would recommend that we relinquish complete control over all weapons and tools for war, both offensive and defensive. I can't see the arms merchants of the world going along with that just as I can't see the financial power-brokers giving up their control over the world's economies.
As an aside, I wonder how ordinary people would feel about being required to surrender all their weapons? There's no way our benefactor is going to allow us to keep our guns, especially if it takes control of the world's weapon systems. Of course, it could simply stop manufacturing spare parts and ammo knowing that we'll eventually run out and our guns will become useless. Besides, Mankind has been making and using weapons of all sorts since we fell out of the trees on the savannas all those millennia ago and we're pretty good at it!
Mankind, as long as we've existed as a self-aware species, has always require some sort of moral guide. Although common sense should tell us (and perhaps it does) that doing certain stuff if just not very good for us, we've always required a set of moral guidelines. Usually these are put forth by a king, however, they seem to lack longevity. As soon as one king dies, another set of moral guidelines can be imposed. However, if the guidelines are said to come from some divine entity and if we fail to obey them we can face some dire heavenly retribution, we tend to take them a little more seriously (of course, these laws usually came with the some proviso like the king or priest are the sole arbiter of these divine laws, meaning you have to obey the king and/or priest to stay on the god's good side).
Therefore, would our super computer make the pronouncement "Here are the rules by which you'll live and if you don't, I'll suspend or delete your bank account, health benefit or food card"? Certainly, any system it would create or recommend would have to have a penalty clause in it otherwise what use is it? Perhaps too, it would include some form of reward system too. For instance, if you go six months without a demerit of some sort, you get extra health benefits or bonus points for your food card.
That's something else about us humans. We work best when there are rewards and punishments involved. Again, you would think it was common sense for us to act in our own best interest, either as an individual or as a society, but we just haven't managed to get that down yet. That's why we just don't have religious pronouncements, but civil ones too which include fines and imprisonment (or even the possibility of death). Naturally, this would bring up a whole other issue, could our "HAL" (to borrow from the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey), also redesign our justice system?
Another possible plus would be that this system would cut down on long trial delays, prolonged appeals, and perhaps even improper sentencing. The statistical facts of the accused could be entered such as age, education, race, gender, religion, orientation, as well as profession and/or social class. Both sides could still plead their case. Since every form of the legal system---secular and religious---from around the world and down through history would have been inputted, the AI would be able to quickly hear proceeding, automatically delete any evidence not applicable, and render a impartial verdict which would equivalent to the defendant's peers in a way which isn't possible today.
Thus, we shouldn't be too surprised if we find that chopping off fingers or hands are back on the table (so to speak) or we're back to the rack and public hangings. Once more, Man has been a slow learner and nothing gets out attention like an example. Besides, these forms of punishments have been use by nearly every society throughout history and so there's commonality to them which could easily be applied. However, it has the added benefit of providing an incentive to follow the law.
As a society, we've struggled to follow "laws" supposedly handed down to us by some omnipotent entity responsible for the creation of the cosmos, what makes us think we'll follow the pronouncements of some machine made by IBM or Apple? We've defied kings and queens who've claimed divine providence just as we've defied populists presidents and strong arm dictators. Surely they represent the level of authority worthy of obeying; at least for the majority of us. So, what would be different about an overgrown calculating machine?
Well, I imagine that any system created by this AI, in whatever form it takes, would dictate that everything be electronic. It's simple, fast, efficient, and easy to monitor. What's not to like? However, it also means that everyone one of us would be bound by our own personal zeros and ones. Failure to comply could result in be denied almost anything---or, alternately, everything. There would be no one to appeal to; no one to take pity on us. Computers aren't capable of that. They just "follow orders" so to speak.
Same goes when discussing religion or the judicial system. It will show absolutely no compassion. It knows only black or white: positive or negative. Zeros or ones. Those will be the chains which bind us. Our ability to shown understanding and compassion is what sets us aside as a species; that and our imagination. The only way a system like the one described above would have to have built in an fail safe which involves human beings who are capable of showing pity or making exceptions, however, those may be exactly the very things which would make any system designed by a computer fail just as they have helped us survive all these millennia.
Artificial intelligence makes for a good servant, but it must never be allowed to become our master. However, as we become increasingly depended on it to organize and run our lives, it will increasingly come to be our masters. No doubt too that we start integrating with our technology. In many ways we already have; LASIK, artificial joints, organs, tissue, hearing aids, bio-metrics, etc. That's simply the nature of the relationship and it will continue to grow. Perhaps, in time, we will become Borg. Resistance may be less futile and more irresistible.