Mind Readings: AGI Part 5: Shaping the Future of AGI - Ethics, Governance, and Hope

In the final episode of this eye-opening series on AGI, you’ll confront the ethical and governance issues surrounding this powerful technology. You’ll learn how you can help shape a future where AGI is used responsibly and ethically, ensuring it benefits humanity instead of harming it. You’ll walk away with a call to action, inspired to advocate for transparency, accountability, and regulation in the development and deployment of AGI. Tune in to discover how to ensure a brighter future with AGI!

Mind Readings: AGI Part 5: Shaping the Future of AGI – Ethics, Governance, and Hope

Watch this video on YouTube.

Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here.

Listen to the audio here:

Download the MP3 audio here.

Machine-Generated Transcript

What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for watching the video.

So, we’ve talked, in this five-part series, about what artificial general intelligence is: general intelligence—the ability to solve problems without being specifically trained for them.

We’ve talked about the ladder to get to general intelligence: from narrow tools, to broad tools within a domain, to expert level tools, to super intelligence, and we’re still pretty, pretty low on that ladder. We talked about the things you could see happening—machines that are agentic in nature, that can solve problems autonomously. We can give them our biggest problems: “Solve this kind of cancer,” “come up with a vaccine for this disease.”

We talked about the things that are probably going to go wrong, like structural unemployment, or civil unrest.

So to cap off this series, let’s talk about the things that we can do—you and I can do—to minimize the risks as much as we can, and hopefully reap as many of the benefits as possible.

The important thing is that we can do a lot of things that we can do, but the important thing to remember is that artificial general intelligence is still manmade. It is still human-made, which means that we are ultimately the ones that have a say over how it develops, and how it grows.

There are a lot of people who are building these systems who—let’s just call them “ethically challenged.” That’s the polite term I would use. They are ethically challenged, and they are profit motivated to the exclusion of other objectives—of other outcomes.

Our role as citizens, as people, as marketers, as business owners, as, as pillars of society is to enforce some key principles around AI as it develops so that bad outcomes are less likely.

What are those, those principles?

Number one: transparency. This is… this is an area where today’s AI really sucks. Like, “Hey, how’d you make that model? What’s in it? Where’d you get the training data? Did you have permission to use that training data?”

We don’t have transparency in today’s AI; that’s something that has to change. As buyers, as consumers, we have to talk with our wallets. If you have two models that are close-ish in performance—one has that transparency, has the nutrition label that says exactly what’s in the box, and the other one doesn’t—we’ve got to prefer, vocally prefer, the one that is telling us, “Here’s how this model was made.”

The second thing is accountability. This is something we need to work out. Who is responsible when AI makes a mistake, particularly a mistake that has serious consequences, like, say, a self-driving car just plowing into a crowd of pedestrians. Who’s responsible for that? Who gets sued? That’s something we have to work out.

Number three, we have to work out (and request of our various governments and things) a taxation structure that accommodates machines. If a machine is going to do human labor, a machine should be taxed in the same way that human labor works because, when you and I work, we pay taxes. That money has got to come from somewhere. So, if a machine works—that machine does the same work—it should be taxed the same. That allows for things like initiatives, like basic income, to exist.

There are a lot of interests, particularly in capitalist societies, that don’t want to see that happen, because that will eat into their profits and margins, and that goes back to accountability. But, if we want to have a society that’s functional… If we want to have a society that’s functional, that’s something we’ve got to focus on.

Today’s AI systems are optimized on a pretty squishy set of ethics: helpful, harmless, truthful, right? Try and be helpful, try to be harmless, try to be truthful. We all know they don’t do a great job of that sometimes.

We have to be much more clear about what the rules are of the systems and have, if not universal, at least generally accepted, best practices that most systems, out of the box, should adhere to. Think about Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. Those were classic for a reason, and the reason was, they made so much sense. “A machine will not harm, or through its inaction, allow harm to come to a human being.” That is a logical and sensible thing.

“Helpful, harmless, truthful” is kind of squishy when you compare it to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics, and so a big part of what we need to do from an optimizing AI is say, “These are the principles that we want to optimize for,” very clearly, so that the models know what to do, particularly as they increase in sophistication, they increase in their reasoning capabilities, we’ve got to make sure that that’s built into the systems.

We also have to pay very close attention to how models deal with human biases—not statistical biases, that’s a separate category, but human biases. What things like fairness and justice, discrimination: When is it allowed? When is it not allowed? Answering these questions is going to vary based on the local context in a society.

So, as we build and grow this technology, we’ll have to adapt the technology to the societies it operates in. If you live in a society that has very different laws than the laws where the model was made, the model needs to be adapted to those laws, and run locally, within that society, to adhere to the… to what is considered acceptable. Ethics and morals are about alignment to what people generally accept as right or wrong, and that varies from society to society.

Finally, as much as I think there’s a lot to be said for independence and freedom with machines, because they can have consequences at such vast levels, they need much more strict regulation than humans do. A person, yes, can influence a lot of people, but a machine can influence way more people, directly, hands-on.

We saw this with social media, when social media algorithms, optimized for view time and stickiness, with no other considerations for ethics, said, “Well, great, let’s make people angry and afraid all the time,” all the time. And it works great—for that algorithm. Does it work great for human well-being? No.

So part of what we have to work on is having a framework for regulation around these machines, and, again, there are some very moneyed interests who are not at all interested in that happening, because it means reduced profits, but, if we want a functioning society, where we’re not shooting each other all the time, we probably need to go down the route of policy and regulation, international cooperation, informed engagement about what these machines should be able to do, and what things these machines must not do.

One of the areas that I’m personally most concerned about, because I’ve seen rapid advancements happen in the last few years, is machines that have autonomous kill authority. We are seeing this happening in Ukraine. Now, to be very clear, I am a staunch supporter of a free and whole Ukraine, and to see Russia’s campaign of terrorism expelled from that country, and see the country restored as a whole—that’s not negotiable; I want to see a free and whole Ukraine. However, to accomplish that, given the manpower differences, Ukraine has been very, very smartly digging into autonomous weapons—weapons that can make kill decisions on their own. That is a very dangerous place for our species as a whole to be, to have machines that have kill authority, without very strict guidelines about that.

The way Ukraine is using it is very smart. For example, a lot of the demos they’ve shown are… So that it’s image recognition, for example. It’s looking for a T-72 tank; it’s not going to mistake someone’s Prius for a T-72 tank. It’s not going to accidentally bomb a Prius…

“Solve this cancer, solve this issue, this addiction issue.”

That’s what we want to get to, but to get to that, we’ve got to leave behind the… our foibles that we’ve thus far dragged into our machines.

I’ll leave this series on this note. One of the things, when I was in my younger years, I wanted to… I wanted to get my black belt in the martial arts, but I very specifically wanted to get my black belt before my first child was born.

The reason for that is, the process of getting there, in the martial arts tradition that I was in—that I’m in—is you have to leave behind a lot of things to get to that. In the school I trained in, the Boston Martial Arts Center, with, with Master Instructor Mark Davis, the black belt test is… In our school, is always about the thing you’re worst at.

Someone who’s not an intellectual, their black belt test is like, three hours of “you have to do every technique, precisely, and recite the names in Japanese, in order,” and so on and so forth. Someone who’s not physical, your black belt test is, “You’re going to run, basically, a half marathon, and get beaten up along the way.” You’re afraid of fighting, or you’re… you’re… you’re hesitant to fight, your black belt test is just a brawl.

Sensei Davis does an amazing job of creating a test that makes you face the things you don’t want to face, to leave them behind, to leave that behind, so that you can progress and elevate yourself, and so it’s a very important thing for me, personally, to, to get through this process before my first child was born, because I, I knew, in the back of my head, if I could do that, then there would be fewer of my own mistakes to pass on to my kid, right? Fewer of my own mistakes to pass on to my kid. Fewer limitations, as a person, to pass on to my kid. I still… I mean, I’m still going to do that, to some degree, but if I could make a conscious effort to do less of that, and leave behind the parts of me that were not as good, I would be creating better conditions for my kids to succeed, because of, of who I am.

This is how we think about artificial general intelligence. As a civilization, as, as a species, what are the things we should leave behind, so that, as these machines skill up, and grow up, they’re not inheriting from us our worst aspects. They are instead inheriting from us our best aspects. That’s what we got to figure out. If we don’t figure that out, it’s going to be bad, and, if we do figure it out, it’s going to be awesome.

So I hope that you take an active role in speaking up about the use of AI, and the, the march towards general intelligence, and advocate for that perspective of transparency, and accountability, fairness, justice, optimizing for human wellness, optimizing away from harming humans, even at the expense of profits and sustainability.

Thanks for tuning into this series; I’ll talk to you on the next one.

If you enjoyed this video, please hit the like button. Subscribe to my channel if you haven’t already, and if you want to know when new videos are available, hit the bell button to be notified as soon as new content is live.

Mind Readings: AGI Part 5: Shaping the Future of AGI – Ethics, Governance, and Hope

Machine-Generated Transcript

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Pin It on Pinterest