Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment PDF
Preview Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment
T H E F R O N T I E R S C O L L E C T I O N SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HY POTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGU LARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHES ES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SIN GULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPO THESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HY POTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGU LARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHES ES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SIN GULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPO THESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HY POTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SIN GULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGU LARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY Amnon H. Eden · James H. Moor HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPO THESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES Johnny H. Søraker · Eric SStINeGUinLAhRIaTYr tH YPOTHESES SIN (Eds.) GULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGU LA RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HY POTHESES SINGULARITY HY SI NGU L A R I T Y PO THESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SIN GULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGU LARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULA H Y POT H E SE S RITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HYPOTHESES SINGULARITY HY POTHESES SINGULARITY HYPO A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION Series Editors Avshalom C. Elitzur Unit of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bar-Ilan University, 52900, Ramat-Gan, Israel e-mail: [email protected] Laura Mersini-Houghton DepartmentofPhysics,UniversityofNorthCarolina,ChapelHill,NC27599-3255 USA e-mail: [email protected] Maximilian Schlosshauer Department of Physics, University of Portland, 5000 North Willamette Boulevard Portland, OR 97203, USA e-mail: [email protected] Mark P. Silverman Department of Physics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106, USA e-mail: [email protected] Jack A. Tuszynski Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada e-mail: [email protected] Rudy Vaas Center for Philosophy and Foundations of Science, University of Giessen, 35394, Giessen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] H. Dieter Zeh Gaiberger Straße 38, 69151, Waldhilsbach, Germany e-mail: [email protected] For furthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/5342 THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION Series Editors A. C. Elitzur L. Mersini-Houghton M. Schlosshauer M. P. Silverman J. A. Tuszynski R. Vaas H. D. Zeh The books in this collection are devoted to challenging and open problems at the forefrontofmodernscience,includingrelatedphilosophicaldebates.Incontrastto typical research monographs, however, they strive to present their topics in a manner accessible also to scientifically literate non-specialists wishing to gain insightintothedeeperimplicationsandfascinatingquestionsinvolved.Takenasa whole,theseriesreflectstheneedforafundamentalandinterdisciplinaryapproach tomodernscience.Furthermore,itisintendedtoencourageactivescientistsinall areas toponderoverimportant andperhapscontroversialissuesbeyondtheirown speciality. Extending from quantum physics and relativity to entropy, conscious- ness and complex systems—the Frontiers Collection will inspire readers to push back the frontiers of their own knowledge. Forafulllistofpublishedtitles,pleaseseebackofbookorspringer.com/series/5342 Amnon H. Eden James H. Moor • Johnny H. Søraker Eric Steinhart • Editors Singularity Hypotheses A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment 123 Editors AmnonH.Eden JohnnyH.Søraker School ofComputer Science Department of Philosophy and ElectronicEngineering Universityof Twente Universityof Essex Enschede Colchester The Netherlands UK Eric Steinhart James H.Moor Department of Philosophy Dartmouth College William Paterson University Hanover Wayne USA USA ISSN 1612-3018 ISBN 978-3-642-32559-5 ISBN 978-3-642-32560-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-32560-1 SpringerHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2012946755 (cid:2)Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purposeofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthe work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of theCopyrightLawofthePublisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalways beobtainedfromSpringer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyright ClearanceCenter.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedherein. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) To Saul, With love, —Aba Contents 1 Singularity Hypotheses: An Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Amnon H. Eden, Eric Steinhart, David Pearce and James H. Moor Part I A Singularity of Artificial Superintelligence 2 Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Luke Muehlhauser and Anna Salamon 2A Robin Hanson on Muehlhauser and Salamon’s ‘‘Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3 The Threat of a Reward-Driven Adversarial Artificial General Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Itamar Arel 3A William J. Rapaport on Arel’s ‘‘The Threat of a Reward-Driven Adversarial Artificial General Intelligence’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4 New Millennium AI and the Convergence of History: Update of 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Jürgen Schmidhuber 4A Aaron Sloman on Schmidhuber’s ‘‘New Millennium AI and the Convergence of History 2012’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4B Selmer Bringsjord, Alexander Bringsjord and Paul Bello on Schmidhuber’s ‘‘New Millennium AI and the Convergence of History 2012’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5 Why an Intelligence Explosion is Probable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Richard Loosemore and Ben Goertzel 5A Peter Bishop’s on Loosemore and Goertzel’s ‘‘Why an Intelligence Explosion is Probable’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 vii viii Contents Part II Concerns About Artificial Superintelligence 6 The Singularity and Machine Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Luke Muehlhauser and Louie Helm 6A Jordi Vallverdú on Muehlhauser and Helm’s ‘‘the Singularity and Machine Ethics’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 7 Artificial General Intelligence and the Human Mental Model . . . . 129 Roman V. Yampolskiy and Joshua Fox 8 Some Economic Incentives Facing a Business that Might Bring About a Technological Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 James D. Miller 8A Robin Hanson on Miller’s ‘‘Some Economic Incentives Facing a Business that Might Bring About a Technological Singularity’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 9 Rational Artificial Intelligence for the Greater Good. . . . . . . . . . . 161 Steve Omohundro 9A Colin Allen and Wendell Wallach on Omohundro’s ‘‘Rationally-Shaped Artificial Intelligence’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 10 Friendly Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Eliezer Yudkowsky 10A ColinAllenonYudkowsky’s‘‘FriendlyArtificialIntelligence’’. . . 195 Part III A Singularity of Posthuman Superintelligence 11 The Biointelligence Explosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 David Pearce 11A Illah R. Nourbakhsh on Pearce’s ‘‘The Biointelligence Explosion’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 12 Embracing Competitive Balance: The Case for Substrate-Independent Minds and Whole Brain Emulation . . . . . . 241 Randal A. Koene 12A Philip Rubin on Koene’s ‘‘Embracing Competitive Balance: The Case For Substrate-Independent Minds and Whole Brain Emulation’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 13 Brain Versus Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Dennis Bray 13A Randal Koene on Bray’s ‘‘Brain Versus Machine’’ . . . . . . . . . . 279 Contents ix 14 The Disconnection Thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 David Roden Part IV Skepticism 15 Interim Report from the Panel Chairs: AAAI Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Eric Horvitz and Bart Selman 15A Itamar Arel on Horwitz’s ‘‘AAAI Presidential Panel on Long Term AI Futures’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 15B Vernor Vinge on Horvitz’s ‘‘AAAI Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 16 Why the Singularity Cannot Happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Theodore Modis 16A Vernor Vinge on Modis’ ‘‘Why the Singularity Cannot Happen’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 16B Ray Kurzweil on Modis’ ‘‘Why the Singularity Cannot Happen’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 17 The Slowdown Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Alessio Plebe and Pietro Perconti 17A Eliezer Yudkowsky on Plebe & Perconti’s ‘‘The Slowdown Hypothesis’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 18 Software Immortals: Science or Faith?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Diane Proudfoot 18A Francis Heylighen on Proudfoot’s ‘‘Software Immortals: Science or Faith?’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 19 Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Selmer Bringsjord, Alexander Bringsjord and Paul Bello 19A Vernor Vinge on Bringsjord et al.’s ‘‘Belief in the Singularity is Fideistic’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 19B Michael Anissimov on Bringsjord et al.’s ‘‘Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 20 A Singular Universe of Many Singularities: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Eric J. Chaisson 20A Theodore Modis on Chaisson’s ‘‘A Singular Universe of Many Singularities: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 Chapter 1 Singularity Hypotheses: An Overview Introduction to: Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment Amnon H. Eden, Eric Steinhart, David Pearce and James H. Moor Questions Bill Joy in a widely read but controversial article claimed that the most powerful 21st century technologies are threatening to make humans an endangered species (Joy 2000). Indeed, a growing number of scientists, philosophers and forecasters insist that the accelerating progress in disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology may lead to what theyrefertoasthetechnologicalsingularity:aneventorphasethatwillradically change human civilization, and perhaps even human nature itself, before the middle of the 21st century (Paul and Cox 1996; Broderick 2001; Garreau 2005, Kurzweil 2005). Singularity hypotheses refer to either one of two distinct and very different scenarios. The first (Vinge 1993; Bostrom to appear) postulates the emergence of artificialsuperintelligentagents—software-basedsyntheticminds—asthe‘singular’ outcomeofacceleratingprogressincomputingtechnology.Thissingularityresults A.H.Eden(&) SchoolofComputerScienceand,ElectronicEngineering, UniversityofEssex,Colchester,CO43SQ,UK e-mail:[email protected] E.Steinhart DepartmentofPhilosophy,WilliamPatersonUniversity,300PomptonRoad,Wayne,NJ 07470,USA e-mail:[email protected] D.Pearce knightsbridgeOnline,7LowerRockGardens,Brighton,USA e-mail:[email protected] J.H.Moor DepartmentofPhilosophy,DartmouthCollege,6035Thornton,Hanover,NH03755,USA e-mail:[email protected] A.H.Edenetal.(eds.),SingularityHypotheses,TheFrontiersCollection, 1 DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-32560-1_1,(cid:2)Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012
The list of books you might like
