More views on how to handle AI's sudden rise (1)
The rising interest in and concern about artificial intelligence is being fuelled by advances in computing techniques and an increase in the abundance of information available to AIs. Computers are spectacularly good at well-defined tasks and this seduces people into thinking that technology is overreaching itself(22 April, p 12).
Essays, job applications, TV scripts etc. are being synthesised through ever more sophisticated pattern matching of keywords and phrases with the huge amount of text available online. My concern is that this doesn’t generate new information. It simply repeats what has already been written. New problems and challenges need new ideas. Existing thinking is at risk of becoming entrenched.
More views on how to handle AI's sudden rise (2)
Some common questions about AI programs are whether they have attained consciousness or general intelligence. I suggest that these may be the wrong questions. Instead, I ask whether these programs have drive: the drive to survive, grow and reproduce.
All biological organisms have drive, even without consciousness or general intelligence. At present, I don’t know of any AI program with drive, but it is certainly conceivable. Consider the following example: a computer virus with AI capabilities. It can reproduce by disseminating copies of itself across the internet, and those copies can become “mutated” (different to their parent) if the AI is clever enough to write its own code. At this point, the forces of evolution can take over. The computer virus inhabits an ecological niche 鈥� the address space of a computer attached to the internet 鈥� and it becomes engaged in a life-or-death struggle with antivirus software, thereby evolving a drive to spread across computers while evading and outwitting the antivirus.
More views on how to handle AI's sudden rise (3)
Computer science has been my profession for more than 40 years, so I know the field, including AI, relatively well. Concerns about bias and a Terminator-style extinction event seem largely to be red herrings. The true threat that AI poses is the destruction of jobs. AI doesn’t need general intelligence to do your job better than you do. Also, it doesn’t need to kill all humans to destroy society 鈥� all it needs to do is eliminate most of the jobs.
Our society is based on the principle that people work for money, which they use to buy things and pay taxes. What will be left of society if most people can’t get money by working? I invite those sceptical of this to look at the status of the board games chess and Go. Humans are no longer competitive against AIs in those games. Journalism and coding are under threat today.
More views on how to handle AI's sudden rise (4)
The discussion of the latest advances in AI brings to mind the 1954 short story Answer by Fredric Brown, in which a computer is asked if there is a god. It answers by saying “now there is” and permanently fuses its switch into the on position.
More views on how to handle AI's sudden rise (5)
To avoid AI pitfalls, we need regulators to limit access to this new technology to those who are trained and appointed to use it.
Returned to natural state, bland river is now a joy
Thank you for Graham Lawton’s very interesting article on restoring rivers to their natural states. As a child, I would regularly visit my grandparents who lived in an industrialised area of Germany, where I would walk past the canalised stream running through their suburb. It was bland, with concrete sides, and just served the purpose of moving water rapidly. There wasn’t much to see(29 April, p 42).
More recently, that stream (the R眉pingsbach) has been “re-natured” as part of a wider scheme for local water courses and wastewater. It is amazing the difference this has made: it is now surrounded by plants, trees and wildlife, with all the benefits attached to that transformation.
Curing ageing raises so many tricky questions
In addition to the points raised by Sandrine Ceurstemont in her review of a podcast about heading off ageing, dramatically extending our lifetimes increases how long our financial resources must last and raises many more dilemmas(29 April, p 36).
Will remaining physically young translate to our mental state? Will people be expected to work decades longer? If so, what effect will that have on the ability of young people to find jobs? Perhaps more importantly, could a few powerful governments obtain control of the technology and decide for themselves who can live longer?
There is no legal green light for new UK oil field
You state that the UK government is “legally bound” to allow the development of the Rosebank oilfield due to it being a signatory to the Energy Charter Treaty(6 May, p 28).
While the licence to explore for Rosebank’s oil was issued in 2001, the holders aren’t permitted to extract the oil until they get a development permit. That can only occur after the field passes several regulatory hurdles, including an environmental impact assessment. If it fails to surmount these, the field will be rejected 鈥� as other oil and gas fields have been in the past 鈥� without triggering liability under the Energy Charter Treaty. The relevant minister also has a discretionary power to direct the regulators in matters that are in the public interest.
These points were tested in 2021, when the UK government wrongly claimed that its hands were tied over the Cambo oil field and that ministers couldn’t block approval. It conceded this wasn’t the case after getting a legal letter from climate groups Uplift and Friends of the Earth Scotland.
Books play second fiddle to screen time these days
It is no mystery why children’s reading skills are diminishing 鈥� they have their noses in iPads and iPhones 24/7(22 April, p 42).
Conspiracy theories: Fight fire with fire
Can conspiracy theories be stopped? Yes, by implanting chips in the promulgators that prevent them making promulgations(15 April, p 12).