I'm going to talk about a failure of intuition that many of us suffer from. It's really a failure to detect a certain kind of danger. I'm going to describe a scenario that I think is both terrifying and likely to occur, and that's not a good combination, as it turns out. And yet rather than be scared, most of you will feel that what I'm talking about is kind of cool.
Pričaću vam o porazu intuicije od koga mnogi patimo. Zista je porazno opaziti određenu vrstu opasnosti. Opisaću vam jedan scenario za koji mislim da je i zastrašujuć i koji se realno može dogoditi, a to, kako se čini, nije dobra kombinacija. A opet umesto da se uplaše, mnogi od vas će misliti da je ono o čemu pričam nešto kul.
I'm going to describe how the gains we make in artificial intelligence could ultimately destroy us. And in fact, I think it's very difficult to see how they won't destroy us or inspire us to destroy ourselves. And yet if you're anything like me, you'll find that it's fun to think about these things. And that response is part of the problem. OK? That response should worry you. And if I were to convince you in this talk that we were likely to suffer a global famine, either because of climate change or some other catastrophe, and that your grandchildren, or their grandchildren, are very likely to live like this, you wouldn't think, "Interesting. I like this TED Talk."
Opisaću vam kako bi napredak koji pravimo u veštačkoj inteligenciji mogao na kraju da nas uništi. Zapravo, mislim da je jako teško zamisliti kako nas neće uništiti, ili navesti da se samouništimo. A opet ako ste imalo kao ja, shvatićete da je zabavno razmišljati o ovim stvarima. I taj odgovor je deo ovog problema. OK? Taj odgovor treba da vas brine. Kad bih vas u ovom govoru ubedio da ćemo vrlo verovatno globalno gladovati, bilo zbog klimatskih promena ili neke druge katastrofe, i da će vaši unuci, ili njihovi unuci, vrlo verovatno živeti ovako, ne biste mislili: "Zanimljivo. Dobar ovaj TED Talk."
Famine isn't fun. Death by science fiction, on the other hand, is fun, and one of the things that worries me most about the development of AI at this point is that we seem unable to marshal an appropriate emotional response to the dangers that lie ahead. I am unable to marshal this response, and I'm giving this talk.
Glad nije zabavna. Smrt u naučnoj fantastici, sa druge strane, jeste zabavna, i nešto što me najviše brine u ovom trenutku u vezi sa razvojem VI je što izgleda da ne možemo da pružimo odgovarajući emocionalni odgovor na opasnosti koje dolaze. Ni ja ne mogu da pružim ovaj odgovor, a držim ovaj govor.
It's as though we stand before two doors. Behind door number one, we stop making progress in building intelligent machines. Our computer hardware and software just stops getting better for some reason. Now take a moment to consider why this might happen. I mean, given how valuable intelligence and automation are, we will continue to improve our technology if we are at all able to. What could stop us from doing this? A full-scale nuclear war? A global pandemic? An asteroid impact? Justin Bieber becoming president of the United States?
To je kao da stojimo ispred dvoja vrata. Iza vrata broj jedan, zaustavljamo napredak u pravljenju inteligentnih mašina. Kompjuterski hardver i softver prosto prestaju da budu bolji iz nekog razloga. Sada na trenutak razmislite zašto bi se ovo moglo desiti. Mislim, s obzirom koliku vrednost imaju inteligencija i automatizacija, nastavićemo da unapređujemo tehnologiju ako smo uopšte kadri za to. Šta bi nas moglo sprečiti u tome? Svetski nuklearni rat? Globalna pandemija? Pad asteroida? Ako Džastin Biber postane predsednik Amerike?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
The point is, something would have to destroy civilization as we know it. You have to imagine how bad it would have to be to prevent us from making improvements in our technology permanently, generation after generation. Almost by definition, this is the worst thing that's ever happened in human history.
Poenta je u tome, da bi nešto moralo da uništi civilizaciju ovakvu kakva je. Morate zamisliti kako bi zaista loše moralo biti to što bi nas trajno sprečilo da unapređujemo, tehnologiju, generaciju za generacijom. Skoro po definiciji, ovo je najgora stvar koja se ikada desila u ljudskoj istoriji.
So the only alternative, and this is what lies behind door number two, is that we continue to improve our intelligent machines year after year after year. At a certain point, we will build machines that are smarter than we are, and once we have machines that are smarter than we are, they will begin to improve themselves. And then we risk what the mathematician IJ Good called an "intelligence explosion," that the process could get away from us.
Pa je jedina alternativa, a ovo se nalazi iza vrata broj dva, da nastavimo da unapređujemo naše inteligentne mašine bez prestanka. U jednom trenutku, napravićemo mašine koje su pametnije od nas, i tad kad budemo imali mašine koje su pametnije od nas, one će same početi da se razvijaju. I onda rizikujemo ono što je matematičar I.Dž. Gud nazvao "eksplozija inteligencije", da proces može da nam pobegne.
Now, this is often caricatured, as I have here, as a fear that armies of malicious robots will attack us. But that isn't the most likely scenario. It's not that our machines will become spontaneously malevolent. The concern is really that we will build machines that are so much more competent than we are that the slightest divergence between their goals and our own could destroy us.
E, sad, ovo se često karikira, kao što ću i ja uraditi, kao strah od napada armije zlih robota. Ali to nije najverovatniji scenario. Nije kao da će naše mašine spontano postati zle. Brine nas, zapravo, da ćemo mi napraviti mašine koje su mnogo, mnogo kompetentnije od nas, brinemo da će nas uništiti i najmanja razlika između naših i njihovih ciljeva.
Just think about how we relate to ants. We don't hate them. We don't go out of our way to harm them. In fact, sometimes we take pains not to harm them. We step over them on the sidewalk. But whenever their presence seriously conflicts with one of our goals, let's say when constructing a building like this one, we annihilate them without a qualm. The concern is that we will one day build machines that, whether they're conscious or not, could treat us with similar disregard.
Zamislite kakvi smo mi prema mravima. Ne mrzimo ih. Ne povređujemo ih namerno. Zapravo, ponekad se trudimo se da ih ne povredimo. Preskačemo ih na trotoaru. Ali kada god njihovo prisustvo ozbiljno ugrozi neke naše ciljeve, recimo kada konstruišemo neku zgradu poput ove, bez po muke ih istrebimo. Brine nas da ćemo jednog dana napraviti mašine koje će, bilo da su svesne ili ne, nas tretirati na isti način.
Now, I suspect this seems far-fetched to many of you. I bet there are those of you who doubt that superintelligent AI is possible, much less inevitable. But then you must find something wrong with one of the following assumptions. And there are only three of them.
E, sad, cenim da većini vas ovo zvuči kao daleka budućnost. Kladim se da ima onih koji ne veruju da je superinteligentna VI moguća, a kamoli neizbežna. Ali onda morate naći neku grešku u sledećim pretpostavkama. A samo ih je tri.
Intelligence is a matter of information processing in physical systems. Actually, this is a little bit more than an assumption. We have already built narrow intelligence into our machines, and many of these machines perform at a level of superhuman intelligence already. And we know that mere matter can give rise to what is called "general intelligence," an ability to think flexibly across multiple domains, because our brains have managed it. Right? I mean, there's just atoms in here, and as long as we continue to build systems of atoms that display more and more intelligent behavior, we will eventually, unless we are interrupted, we will eventually build general intelligence into our machines.
Inteligencija je stvar obrade informacija u fizičkim sistemima. U stvari, ovo je malo više od neke pretpostavke. Već smo ugradili specifičnu inteligenciju u naše mašine, i mnoge od ovih mašina već imaju performanse na nivou superljudske inteligencije. I znamo da sama materija može da omogući takozvanu "uopštenu inteligenciju", sposobnost da se fleksibilno razmišlja u različitim domenima, jer to može i naš mozak. Je l' tako? Mislim, ovde postoje samo atomi, i sve dok mi nastavljamo da gradimo sisteme atoma koji su sve inteligentniji i inteligentniji, mi ćemo na kraju, osim ako nas prekinu, mi ćemo na kraju ugraditi uopštenu inteligenciju u naše mašine.
It's crucial to realize that the rate of progress doesn't matter, because any progress is enough to get us into the end zone. We don't need Moore's law to continue. We don't need exponential progress. We just need to keep going.
Od suštinske je važnosti da shvatimo da stopa napretka nije važna, jer bilo kakav napredak je dovoljan da nas dovede do cilja. Ne treba nam Murov zakon. Ne treba nam eksponencijalni napredak. Samo treba da nastavimo dalje.
The second assumption is that we will keep going. We will continue to improve our intelligent machines. And given the value of intelligence -- I mean, intelligence is either the source of everything we value or we need it to safeguard everything we value. It is our most valuable resource. So we want to do this. We have problems that we desperately need to solve. We want to cure diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. We want to understand economic systems. We want to improve our climate science. So we will do this, if we can. The train is already out of the station, and there's no brake to pull.
Druga pretpostavka je da ćemo nastaviti dalje. Nastavićemo da poboljšavamo naše inteligentne mašine. I uz postojeću vrednost inteligencije - mislim, inteligencija je ili izvor svega što je vredno ili nam treba da sačuvamo sve ono što nam je vredno. To je naš najvredniji resurs. I zato želimo da uradimo ovo. Imamo probleme koje očajnički moramo da rešimo. Želimo da izlečimo bolesti poput Alchajmera i raka. Želimo da shvatimo ekonomske sisteme. Želimo da poboljšamo nauku o klimi. Tako da, ako možemo, to ćemo i uraditi. Voz je već napustio stanicu, i nema kočnice.
Finally, we don't stand on a peak of intelligence, or anywhere near it, likely. And this really is the crucial insight. This is what makes our situation so precarious, and this is what makes our intuitions about risk so unreliable.
Konačno, mi ne stojimo na vrhuncu inteligencije, a verovatno ni blizu toga. I ovo je zaista suštinski uvid. Zbog ovoga je naša situacija tako nepouzdana, i zbog toga je naša intuicija o riziku tako nepouzdana.
Now, just consider the smartest person who has ever lived. On almost everyone's shortlist here is John von Neumann. I mean, the impression that von Neumann made on the people around him, and this included the greatest mathematicians and physicists of his time, is fairly well-documented. If only half the stories about him are half true, there's no question he's one of the smartest people who has ever lived. So consider the spectrum of intelligence. Here we have John von Neumann. And then we have you and me. And then we have a chicken.
E, sad, samo razmislite o najpametnijoj osobi ikada. Na skoro svačijem užem spisku ovde je Džon fon Nojman. Mislim, utisak koji je Nojman ostavio na ljude oko sebe, uključujući tu najveće matematičare i fizičare tog vremena, je prilično dobro dokumentovan. I ako je samo pola onih priča o njemu polutačna, nema dileme da je on jedan od najpametnijih ljudi koji su ikada živeli. Samo zamislite opseg inteligencije. Ovde imamo Džona fon Nojmana. Onda smo tu vi i ja. I onda imamo neko pile.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Sorry, a chicken.
Pardon, neko pile.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
There's no reason for me to make this talk more depressing than it needs to be.
Nema potrebe da idem dalje u dubiozu u ovom govoru nego što treba.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
It seems overwhelmingly likely, however, that the spectrum of intelligence extends much further than we currently conceive, and if we build machines that are more intelligent than we are, they will very likely explore this spectrum in ways that we can't imagine, and exceed us in ways that we can't imagine.
Međutim, čini se da je više nego verovatno da se spektar inteligencije proteže mnogo više nego što trenutno možemo da shvatimo, i ako napravimo mašine koje su mnogo inteligentnije od nas, one će skoro sigurno istražiti ovaj spektar onako kako to ne možemo ni zamisliti, i preteći nas na načine koje ne možemo ni zamisliti.
And it's important to recognize that this is true by virtue of speed alone. Right? So imagine if we just built a superintelligent AI that was no smarter than your average team of researchers at Stanford or MIT. Well, electronic circuits function about a million times faster than biochemical ones, so this machine should think about a million times faster than the minds that built it. So you set it running for a week, and it will perform 20,000 years of human-level intellectual work, week after week after week. How could we even understand, much less constrain, a mind making this sort of progress?
I važno je shvatiti da je ovo moguće samo putem brzine. U redu? Zamislite samo da napravimo jednu superinteligentnu VI koja nije ništa pametnija od vašeg prosečnog tima istraživača na Stanfordu ili MIT-u. Pa, električna kola funkcionišu oko milion puta brže od biohemijskih, tako da bi ove mašine razmišljale oko milion puta brže od umova koje su ih sastavile. Pustite ih da rade nedelju dana, i izvešće 20.000 godina ljudskog intelektualnog rada, nedelju za nedeljom. Kako čak možemo i razumeti, a kamoli ograničiti um koji bi mogao ovo da uradi?
The other thing that's worrying, frankly, is that, imagine the best case scenario. So imagine we hit upon a design of superintelligent AI that has no safety concerns. We have the perfect design the first time around. It's as though we've been handed an oracle that behaves exactly as intended. Well, this machine would be the perfect labor-saving device. It can design the machine that can build the machine that can do any physical work, powered by sunlight, more or less for the cost of raw materials. So we're talking about the end of human drudgery. We're also talking about the end of most intellectual work.
Iskreno, ono drugo što je zabrinjavajuće je da, zamislite najbolji mogući scenario. Zamislite da nabasamo na neki dizajn superinteligentne VI čija nas sigurnost ne brine. Po prvi put imamo savršeni dizajn. To je kao da nam je dato proročanstvo koje se odvija baš kako je zapisano. Ta mašina bi bila savršeni uređaj za uštedu radne snage. Dizajnirala bi mašinu koja može napraviti mašine za bilo kakav fizički posao, a koje bi napajalo sunce, manje-više po ceni sirovina. Pričamo o kraju teškog ljudskog rada. Takođe pričamo o kraju većeg dela intelektualnog rada.
So what would apes like ourselves do in this circumstance? Well, we'd be free to play Frisbee and give each other massages. Add some LSD and some questionable wardrobe choices, and the whole world could be like Burning Man.
Pa šta će onda majmuni poput nas da rade u takvim okolnostima? Pa, imali bismo vremena za frizbi i da masiramo jedni druga. Dodajmo malo LSD-a i neke diskutabilne garderobe, i ceo svet bi mogao biti poput festivala Burning Man.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Now, that might sound pretty good, but ask yourself what would happen under our current economic and political order? It seems likely that we would witness a level of wealth inequality and unemployment that we have never seen before. Absent a willingness to immediately put this new wealth to the service of all humanity, a few trillionaires could grace the covers of our business magazines while the rest of the world would be free to starve.
E, sad, to možda zvuči kao dobra ideja, ali zapitajte se šta bi se desilo pod našim trenutnim ekonomskim i političkim poretkom? Čini se verovatnim da bismo bili svedoci određenog nivoa novčane nejednakosti i nezaposlenosti koji ranije nismo viđali. Uz odsustvo volje da se odmah ovo novo bogatstvo stavi na raspolaganje čovečanstvu, nekoliko bilionera bi poziralo na omotima biznis magazina dok bi ostatak sveta slobodno mogao umreti od gladi.
And what would the Russians or the Chinese do if they heard that some company in Silicon Valley was about to deploy a superintelligent AI? This machine would be capable of waging war, whether terrestrial or cyber, with unprecedented power. This is a winner-take-all scenario. To be six months ahead of the competition here is to be 500,000 years ahead, at a minimum. So it seems that even mere rumors of this kind of breakthrough could cause our species to go berserk.
I šta bi radili Rusi ili Kinezi kada bi čuli da tamo neka firma iz Silicijumske doline treba da izbaci superinteligentnu VI? Ova mašina bi bila sposobna da vodi rat, bilo klasični, bilo sajber rat, nadmoćna bez presedana. Ovo je scenario pobednik nosi sve. Biti šest meseci ispred konkurencije ovde je isto biti 500 000 godina ispred, u najmanju ruku. Tako se čini da bi čak i samo glasina o proboju ovog tipa izazvala ludnicu među ljudima.
Now, one of the most frightening things, in my view, at this moment, are the kinds of things that AI researchers say when they want to be reassuring. And the most common reason we're told not to worry is time. This is all a long way off, don't you know. This is probably 50 or 100 years away. One researcher has said, "Worrying about AI safety is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars." This is the Silicon Valley version of "don't worry your pretty little head about it."
I, sad, jedna od najstarašnijih stvari, prema mom mišljenju, trenutno, su one stvari koje istraživači VI kažu kada žele da vas ohrabre. I najuobičajeniji razlog zbog koga nam kažu da ne brinemo jeste vreme. Sve je to daleko, znate. To je verovatno 50 ili 100 godina daleko. Jedan istraživač je rekao: "Briga o bezbednosti VI je kao briga o prenaseljenosti Marsa." Ovo je kao kada vam iz Silicijumske doline kažu: "Nemojte vi zamarati vaše glavice time."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
No one seems to notice that referencing the time horizon is a total non sequitur. If intelligence is just a matter of information processing, and we continue to improve our machines, we will produce some form of superintelligence. And we have no idea how long it will take us to create the conditions to do that safely. Let me say that again. We have no idea how long it will take us to create the conditions to do that safely.
Izgleda da niko ne primećuje da je odnos prema vremenu potpuni non sequitur. Ako je inteligencija samo stvar procesuiranja informacija, i mi nastavimo da poboljšavamo mašine, proizvešćemo neki oblik superinteligencije. I nemamo pojma koliko će nam trebati vremena da stvorimo uslove da to uradimo bezbedno. Dozvolite mi da ponovim. Nemamo pojma koliko vremena će nam trebati da stvorimo uslove da to uradimo bezbedno.
And if you haven't noticed, 50 years is not what it used to be. This is 50 years in months. This is how long we've had the iPhone. This is how long "The Simpsons" has been on television. Fifty years is not that much time to meet one of the greatest challenges our species will ever face. Once again, we seem to be failing to have an appropriate emotional response to what we have every reason to believe is coming.
Ako niste primetili, 50 godina nije kao što je bilo ranije. Ovo je 50 godina u mesecima. Ovoliko dugo već imamo iPhone. Ovoliko se već prikazuju "Simpsonovi". Pedeset godina nije mnogo vremena da se ostvari jedan od najvećih izazova naše vrste. Još jedanput, izgleda da nam nedostaje odgovarajući emocionalni odgovor na ono na šta imamo svako pravo da verujemo da dolazi.
The computer scientist Stuart Russell has a nice analogy here. He said, imagine that we received a message from an alien civilization, which read: "People of Earth, we will arrive on your planet in 50 years. Get ready." And now we're just counting down the months until the mothership lands? We would feel a little more urgency than we do.
Kompjuterski naučnik Stjuart Rasel ima lepu analogiju za ovo. On kaže, zamislite da smo primili neku poruku od vanzemaljaca, u kojoj stoji: "Zemljani, stižemo na vašu planetu za 50 godina. Spremite se." I mi ćemo samo da odbrojavamo mesece dok se njihov brod ne spusti? Osetili bismo malo više straha nego obično.
Another reason we're told not to worry is that these machines can't help but share our values because they will be literally extensions of ourselves. They'll be grafted onto our brains, and we'll essentially become their limbic systems. Now take a moment to consider that the safest and only prudent path forward, recommended, is to implant this technology directly into our brains. Now, this may in fact be the safest and only prudent path forward, but usually one's safety concerns about a technology have to be pretty much worked out before you stick it inside your head.
Drugo zbog čega kažu da ne brinemo je da ove mašine ne mogu drugačije nego da dele naše vrednosti zato što će one bukvalno biti produžeci nas samih. One će biti nakalamljene na naš mozak i mi ćemo suštinski postati limbički sistem. Sad na trenutak razmislite da je najbezbednija i jedina razborita i preporučena, putanja napred, da ovu tehnologiju implementiramo direktno u naš mozak. Sad, ovo može biti najbezbednija i jedina razborita putanja napred, ali obično se bezbednost neke tehnologije mora baš dobro razmotriti pre nego što vam se zabode u mozak.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
The deeper problem is that building superintelligent AI on its own seems likely to be easier than building superintelligent AI and having the completed neuroscience that allows us to seamlessly integrate our minds with it. And given that the companies and governments doing this work are likely to perceive themselves as being in a race against all others, given that to win this race is to win the world, provided you don't destroy it in the next moment, then it seems likely that whatever is easier to do will get done first.
Veći problem je što pravljenje superinteligentne VI same od sebe izgleda lakše od pravljenja superinteligentne VI i kompletiranja neuronauke koja nam omogućava da integrišemo naše umove sa njom. I ako imamo to da kompanije i vlade rade ovaj posao, one će verovatno to shvatiti kao da se takmiče protiv svih drugih, jer pobediti u ovoj trci znači osvojiti svet, uz uslov da ga sledećeg trenutka ne uništite, a onda će verovatno prvo biti urađeno ono što je najlakše.
Now, unfortunately, I don't have a solution to this problem, apart from recommending that more of us think about it. I think we need something like a Manhattan Project on the topic of artificial intelligence. Not to build it, because I think we'll inevitably do that, but to understand how to avoid an arms race and to build it in a way that is aligned with our interests. When you're talking about superintelligent AI that can make changes to itself, it seems that we only have one chance to get the initial conditions right, and even then we will need to absorb the economic and political consequences of getting them right.
E, sad, nažalost, ja nemam rešenje za ovaj problem, osim toga da preporučim da više nas promisli o tome. Smatram da nam je potrebno nešto poput Projekta Menhetn na temu veštačke inteligencije. Ne da bismo je izgradili, jer mislim da je to neizbežno, već da razumemo kako da izbegnemo trku naoružanja i da je napravimo na način koji je u skladu sa našim interesima. Kada se razgovara o superinteligentnoj VI koja sama sebe može da menja, čini se da imamo samo jednu šansu da početne uslove postavimo kako treba, a čak i onda ćemo morati da prihvatimo ekonomske i političke posledice pravilne upotrebe.
But the moment we admit that information processing is the source of intelligence, that some appropriate computational system is what the basis of intelligence is, and we admit that we will improve these systems continuously, and we admit that the horizon of cognition very likely far exceeds what we currently know, then we have to admit that we are in the process of building some sort of god. Now would be a good time to make sure it's a god we can live with.
Ali trenutak kada priznamo da je obrada informacija izvor inteligencije, da je neki odgovarajući računarski sistem osnova onoga što je inteligencija, i prihvatimo da ćemo stalno unapređivati ove sisteme, i prihvatimo da će horizont shvatanja vrlo verovatno daleko nadmašiti ono što trenutno znamo, onda moramo da prihvatimo da smo u procesu pravljenja neke vrste božanstva. Sada bi bilo dobro vreme da se postaramo da je to božanstvo sa kojim bismo mogli živeti.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam mnogo.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)