As the science fiction novelist William Gibson famously observed: “The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.”
I wish people would pay more attention to that adage whenever the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) comes up. Public discourse about it invariably focuses on the threat — or promise, depending on your point of view — of “superintelligent” machines, that is, ones that display human-level general intelligence, even though such devices have been 20 to 50 years away ever since we first started worrying about them.
The likelihood — or mirage — of such machines still remains a distant prospect, a point made by Andrew Ng (吳恩達), a leading AI researcher and Stanford University academic, who said that he worries about superintelligence in the same way that he frets about overpopulation on Mars.
Illustration: Lance Liu
That seems about right to me. If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might ask if our obsession with a highly speculative future has been deliberately orchestrated to divert attention from the fact that lower-level, but exceedingly powerful AI is already here and playing an ever-expanding role in shaping our economies, societies and politics.
This technology is a combination of machine learning and big data and it is everywhere, controlled and deployed by a handful of powerful corporations, with occasional walk-on parts assigned to national security agencies.
These corporations regard this version of “weak” AI as the biggest thing since sliced bread.
Google chief executive Sundar Pichai burbles about “AI everywhere” in his company’s offerings. Same goes for the other digital giants. In the face of this hype onslaught, it takes a certain amount of courage to stand up and ask awkward questions.
If this stuff is so powerful, then surely we ought to be looking at how it is being used, asking whether it is legal, ethical and good for society — and thinking about what will happen when it gets into the hands of people who are even worse than the folks who run the big tech corporations. Because it will.
Fortunately, there are academics who have started to ask these awkward questions. There are, for example, the researchers who work at AI Now, a research institute at New York University focused on the social implications of AI. Their report last year makes interesting reading.
Last week saw the publication of more in the same vein — a new critique of the technology by 26 experts from six major universities, plus a number of independent think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Its title — The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention and Mitigation — says it all.
The report fills a serious gap in our thinking about this stuff. We have heard the hype, corporate and governmental, about the wonderful things that AI can supposedly do and we have begun to pay attention to the unintentional downsides of legitimate applications of the technology. Now the time has come to pay attention to the really malign things bad actors could do with it.
The report looks at three main “domains” in which we can expect problems. One is digital security.
The use of AI to automate tasks involved in carrying out cyberattacks will alleviate the existing trade-off between the scale and efficacy of attacks. We can also expect attacks that exploit human vulnerabilities (for example, through the use of speech synthesis for impersonation), existing software vulnerabilities (through automated hacking) or the vulnerabilities of legitimate AI systems (through corruption of the data streams on which machine learning depends).
A second threat domain is physical security — attacks with drones and autonomous weapons systems. Think v2.0 of the hobbyist drones that the Islamic State group deployed, but this time with face-recognition technology on board.
We can also expect new kinds of attacks that subvert physical systems that, for example, causes autonomous vehicles to crash, or deploy physical systems that would be impossible to remotely control from a distance, such as a 1,000-strong swarm of microdrones.
Finally, there is what the authors call “political security” — using AI to automate tasks involved in surveillance, persuasion (creating targeted propaganda) and deception (such as, manipulating videos).
We can also expect new kinds of attacks based on machine-learning’s capability to infer human behaviors, moods and beliefs from available data. This technology will obviously be welcomed by authoritarian states, but it will also further undermine the ability of democracies to sustain truthful public debates.
The bots and fake Facebook accounts that currently pollute our public sphere will look awfully amateurish in a couple of years.
The report is available as a free download and is worth reading in full.
If it were about the dangers of future or speculative technologies, then it might be reasonable to dismiss it as academic scaremongering. The alarming thing is that most of the problematic capabilities that its authors envisage are already available and in many cases are embedded in many of the networked services that we use every day.
Gibson was right: The future has already arrived.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations