Artificial intelligence systems capable of feelings or self-awareness are at risk of being harmed if the technology is developed irresponsibly, according to an open letter signed by AI practitioners and thinkers including Sir Stephen Fry.
More than 100 experts have put forward five principles for conducting responsible research into AI consciousness, as rapid advances raise concerns that such systems could be considered sentient.
The principles include prioritizing research on understanding and assessing consciousness in AIs, in order to prevent “mistreatment and suffering.”
Photo: Photo: Bloomberg
The other principles are: setting constraints on developing conscious AI systems; taking a phased approach to developing such systems; sharing findings with the public; and refraining from making misleading or overconfident statements about creating conscious AI.
The letter’s signatories include academics such as Sir Anthony Finkelstein at the University of London and AI professionals at companies including Amazon and the advertising group WPP.
It has been published alongside a research paper that outlines the principles. The paper argues that conscious AI systems could be built in the near future — or at least ones that give the impression of being conscious.
Photo: EPA
“It may be the case that large numbers of conscious systems could be created and caused to suffer,” the researchers say, adding that if powerful AI systems were able to reproduce themselves it could lead to the creation of “large numbers of new beings deserving moral consideration.”
The paper, written by Oxford University’s Patrick Butlin and Theodoros Lappas of the Athens University of Economics and Business, adds that even companies not intending to create conscious systems will need guidelines in case of “inadvertently creating conscious entities.”
It acknowledges that there is widespread uncertainty and disagreement over defining consciousness in AI systems and whether it is even possible, but says it is an issue that “we must not ignore”.
Photo: AFP
Other questions raised by the paper focus on what to do with an AI system if it is defined as a “moral patient” — an entity that matters morally “in its own right, for its own sake.” In that scenario, it questions if destroying the AI would be comparable to killing an animal.
The paper, published in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, also warned that a mistaken belief that AI systems are already conscious could lead to a waste of political energy as misguided efforts are made to promote their welfare.
The paper and letter were organized by Conscium, a research organization part-funded by WPP and co-founded by WPP’s chief AI officer, Daniel Hulme.
Last year a group of senior academics argued there was a “realistic possibility” that some AI systems will be conscious and “morally significant” by 2035.
In 2023, Sir Demis Hassabis, the head of Google’s AI program and a Nobel prize winner, said AI systems were “definitely” not sentient currently but could be in the future.
“Philosophers haven’t really settled on a definition of consciousness yet but if we mean sort of self-awareness, these kinds of things, I think there’s a possibility AI one day could be,” he said in an interview with US broadcaster CBS.
From the last quarter of 2001, research shows that real housing prices nearly tripled (before a 2012 law to enforce housing price registration, researchers tracked a few large real estate firms to estimate housing price behavior). Incomes have not kept pace, though this has not yet led to defaults. Instead, an increasing chunk of household income goes to mortgage payments. This suggests that even if incomes grow, the mortgage squeeze will still make voters feel like their paychecks won’t stretch to cover expenses. The housing price rises in the last two decades are now driving higher rents. The rental market
July 21 to July 27 If the “Taiwan Independence Association” (TIA) incident had happened four years earlier, it probably wouldn’t have caused much of an uproar. But the arrest of four young suspected independence activists in the early hours of May 9, 1991, sparked outrage, with many denouncing it as a return to the White Terror — a time when anyone could be detained for suspected seditious activity. Not only had martial law been lifted in 1987, just days earlier on May 1, the government had abolished the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist
When life gives you trees, make paper. That was one of the first thoughts to cross my mind as I explored what’s now called Chung Hsing Cultural and Creative Park (中興文化創意園區, CHCCP) in Yilan County’s Wujie Township (五結). Northeast Taiwan boasts an abundance of forest resources. Yilan County is home to both Taipingshan National Forest Recreation Area (太平山國家森林遊樂區) — by far the largest reserve of its kind in the country — and Makauy Ecological Park (馬告生態園區, see “Towering trees and a tranquil lake” in the May 13, 2022 edition of this newspaper). So it was inevitable that industrial-scale paper making would
Hualien lawmaker Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) is the prime target of the recall campaigns. They want to bring him and everything he represents crashing down. This is an existential test for Fu and a critical symbolic test for the campaigners. It is also a crucial test for both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and a personal one for party Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). Why is Fu such a lightning rod? LOCAL LORD At the dawn of the 2020s, Fu, running as an independent candidate, beat incumbent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) and a KMT candidate to return to the legislature representing
RSS