Creating Decentralized Artificial General Intelligence

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

So Ben will start off by talking about the idea of centralized governance globally there's pros and cons. People argued that past a certain threshold of AI, we may require it for certain topics. We will certain topics we won't. When you think about centralizing, we're not centralizing a governance. What do you think those important distinctions are where do you stand? The funny thing is when you set it off with the phrase governance I, immediately was thinking about is doing the governance. Out. A hours that. I've been that is in the end. Where we're going to get to with the advanced technologies that humans are rolling out. Human beings are not gonna be able to coordinate human society. In effective way, we're GONNA need a gradual transition. APP powered. Governance of humans but. Together, they're certainly in the early stages we will need wise and judicious in agile human governance of of a is end because initially the is aren't generally intelligent enough. To govern themselves in the rather uses tools by humans. human institutions enduring during the government is are mainly being tools. I mean governance of AI, is mostly about governing how various humans and institutions are using a I, which is a very important in difficult problem right and then the really interesting thing will come in the transition between these two phases of justice got great like. So in the long run, which could just the couple of decades coming in the long run we're looking at a is doing governance yet. End In immediate term were looking at. Okay. What regulations do we make? Stop people from doing? Nasty things with the I in military Jordan positive uses of. But then in the intermediate stage between assume phases, you got a eiser gradually getting more and more autonomy gradually getting more and more general out right and how how the regulate things in that context against quite interesting and and Saga Roy and some countries, some legal systems are trying to take. Modest steps in that direction already, but there's a tremendous amount of on those and so if we think about the state of affairs today there are folks who say, well, you know when it comes to privacy of data, you know maybe that should be done within individual countries. Well, when it comes to you know win facial recognition can and cannot be used well, that's gotta stay within countries. There's other folks that argue that other things may be a lethal autonomous weapons or. Some facets of kind of human rights or maybe to some degree privacy fits in there. I know some people feel very strongly about facial recognition globally that there's some threshold where even with today's tool like a I ben that there should be some broader set of standards that humanity can kind of play by for the sake of our aggregate wellbeing in both peace and prosperity other people really think everything as far as today goes is a country decision in that stat would you agree with that of see certain thresholds where it does make sense for global standards to fit in or are we too early for that or is it never a good idea? Where to list. We have now in the commercial sphere is concern. Regulation of AI is not especially different from the regulation of many other types of of software or hardware tools. The boundary is is quite difficult to draw right like weather Cambridge Jan Letica with crunching people's facebook profiles know using basic statistical analysis in an excel spreadsheet or using a machine learning algorithm. It doesn't really matter on the dozen hundred of manipulation. Let people using their day that it's. It's the same thing right I mean. With face recognition I, mean whether you consider that a higher it is what it is. If you have something more complicated than sunlight recognizing who someone is from. From. There Gate up from the other people walking next to them or something I mean you may need more general intelligence directing those people from more indirect cues but in the end the. They had to go on regulatory issues are. About the same right it's more about the the pet optical were building. About the the degree of. Intelligence. That were embedding in different parts of it. I think once they is get more autonomy as agents and are you know making their own? Choices in the world without humans tightly in the loop. Then you get into a fundamentally different class of of ethical and end regulatory issues than we. You know we made some small engine number of years away from that. The commercially rollout software. We're not there yet right. We're talking about. Is. In terms of national versus global regulation or In US become state versus federal Allen, stay on a pragmatic basis. This is GONNA be national. Regulation. For the immediate future because the international community can't even regulate nuclear weapons effectively right in that. That's very clear. What is a nuclear weapon in what isn't a nuclear weapon? There's not a fuzzy dividing line there. And also, there's not a lot of humanitarian and lucrative commercial uses for nuclear weapons that are very very similar to the Nazis is one avoid right? So even in the silver clear case like that. The international community is doing a pretty bad job, but I mean in a case where the nasty things. are a few lines of code away from highly lucrative commercial things are highly beneficial humanitarian things I mean how? How. Is International Community? Impact is going to cope with that very very uselessly would be would be

Coming up next