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.
In the March 9 edition of the Taipei Times a piece by Ninon Godefroy ran with the headine “The quiet, gentle rhythm of Taiwan.” It started with the line “Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention.” I laughed out loud at that. This was out of no disrespect for the author or the piece, which made some interesting analogies and good points about how both Din Tai Fung’s and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC, 台積電) meticulous attention to detail and quality are not quite up to
April 21 to April 27 Hsieh Er’s (謝娥) political fortunes were rising fast after she got out of jail and joined the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in December 1945. Not only did she hold key positions in various committees, she was elected the only woman on the Taipei City Council and headed to Nanjing in 1946 as the sole Taiwanese female representative to the National Constituent Assembly. With the support of first lady Soong May-ling (宋美齡), she started the Taipei Women’s Association and Taiwan Provincial Women’s Association, where she
It is one of the more remarkable facts of Taiwan history that it was never occupied or claimed by any of the numerous kingdoms of southern China — Han or otherwise — that lay just across the water from it. None of their brilliant ministers ever discovered that Taiwan was a “core interest” of the state whose annexation was “inevitable.” As Paul Kua notes in an excellent monograph laying out how the Portuguese gave Taiwan the name “Formosa,” the first Europeans to express an interest in occupying Taiwan were the Spanish. Tonio Andrade in his seminal work, How Taiwan Became Chinese,
Mongolian influencer Anudari Daarya looks effortlessly glamorous and carefree in her social media posts — but the classically trained pianist’s road to acceptance as a transgender artist has been anything but easy. She is one of a growing number of Mongolian LGBTQ youth challenging stereotypes and fighting for acceptance through media representation in the socially conservative country. LGBTQ Mongolians often hide their identities from their employers and colleagues for fear of discrimination, with a survey by the non-profit LGBT Centre Mongolia showing that only 20 percent of people felt comfortable coming out at work. Daarya, 25, said she has faced discrimination since she
RSS