When I was a little girl, my greatest aspiration was to live long enough to see the interplanetary manned flights. Of course, I was looking forward to other great things as well.<\/p>\n
Contents<\/p>
That\u2019s a shame!<\/p>\n
While humanlike robots are featured in SCI-FI movies and TV shows, we\u2019re still unlikely to get them any time soon in a nearby electronics store. Yet, virtual AI is already here, Siri and Cortana for instance. Of course, they can\u2019t be called sentient, or even semi-sentient, but considering the rate at which robotics develop, we\u2019re bound to face some ethical problem soon.<\/p>\n
Right now, if you ask Siri \u201chow to make an atomic bomb\u201d, it will give you a list of links to nuclear science or historic websites. This is a built-in precaution that engineers have foreseen, plus the limitations set by Google search engine. But, let\u2019s imagine, that Siri has its own flexible and self-educating intellect. How will it react? Will it be pacifistic or misanthropic? Will it take after its master or have its own principles and priorities? And speaking of which, what they might be?<\/p>\n
Interestingly enough, the creators of Siri aren\u2019t concerned about an AI powered society future, but Microsoft is.<\/p>\n
On September 28, 2016, Microsoft and IBM, together with Amazon, DeepMind\/Google and Facebook, announced that they are creating a non-profit organization to \u201cadvance public understanding of artificial intelligence technologies (AI) and formulate best practices on the challenges and opportunities within the field. Academics, non-profits, and specialists in policy and ethics will be invited to join\u201d.<\/p>\n
This brings us back to the Si-Fi stories I was so fascinated with a long time ago. Particularly, Azimov\u2019s three laws of robotics. I wonder why those at IBM or Deep Mind can\u2019t take a book from a shelf or download it on their readers and read these laws:<\/p>\n
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.<\/p>\n
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.<\/p>\n
A robot must protect its own existence, so long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.<\/p>\n
When I first read the news about the\u00a0Partnership on Artificial Intelligence<\/a>\u00a0I was so excited that I tried to apply the rules to the existing digital assistants.<\/p>\n Siri and Cortana cannot injure a human being right now. However, they can deliver potentially harmful information. Siri and Cortana are protected by Apple and IBM engineers; they can be switched off but cannot be deleted by a common user. It takes advanced knowledge of your computer system to delete Cortana, but Siri is indispensable.<\/p>\n In a word, the modern digital assistants do not meet any of the aforementioned rules. If we can\u2019t control the assistants which just imitate intellectual behavior, what will we do with their progenies? And why has Apple, who possesses the most complicated digital assistant, taken a backseat? Or are they involved in some undercover super-secret \u2018wow\u2019 project?<\/p>\n
\nSiri and Cortana obey all users\u2019 orders because they are incapable of evaluating the moral aspect of the order or its outcome. They have some built-in limitations, I believe.<\/p>\nLinks<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
Why the Laws of Robotics Don’t Work [Video]<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n