Futurelawyer

Be Careful What You Wish For.

Lawyers, being a risk averse lot, will likely be at the head of the line of folks who want to regulate, study, and worry about AI, AGI, and their progeny. My recent post about the intersection of ethics, science, law and philosophy, and their different perspectives on AI, is just the beginning of what I think will be decades of study about the coming maelstrom. Even if you don't believe that Terminators will come to destroy humanity, is it unreasonable to suggest that thinking, sentient bots won't look down on mere humans, even though we created them? Will we, and our fellow chickens, worship and obey our robot overlords?

Existential Problems In The Development Of AGI.

The next step in the evolution of AI systems, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). is not whether AGI systems can be developed, but how to protect humanity from them. Once machines are able to learn and make decisions based on knowledge and circumstances, they will have a frightening capacity to do harm. Many ethicists and scientists believe that some form of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are essential to AGI development. However, it isn't that simple.

Asimov's Three Laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Applying the rules to AGI systems seems like a no brainer, However, they are over simplistic in real world applications. The lawyer in me sees a corollary problem to such legal terms as "reasonable". For instance, actionable negligence requires actions which are not "reasonable". However, who gets to define what reasonable is? Asimov's laws are similarly vague. What constitutes "harm", for instance. What if an AGI determines that, to avoid harm to one human, or to humanity in general, it is necessary to harm, injure or kill many other humans? How are such comparative judgments to be made?  Also, who will write the code for AGI? Which humans will be doing the dirty work? Are they moral? Are they evil? Who decides? You can bet there will be many military people and governments wanting to develop AGIs to make war and to kill their enemies. How do we stop that? There's ongoing debate among philosophers, ethicists, and AI researchers about what principles should govern AGI. Some argue that Asimov's laws are a good starting point, while others believe that more complex and nuanced ethical frameworks are needed. On top of these scientific and philosophical problems, some sort of legal regulatory framework will need to be created. Our existing justice system will need to tackle complex problems of such matters as: 1. Can an AGI be legally classified as human, with human rights and responsibilities? 2. How do we punish rogue AGIs? 3. Do we punish the coders, or manufacturers, or users of the systems? We need to focus on creating ethical, transparent algorithms, and we must incorporate principles such as fairness, accountability, and transparency, all of which are way beyond the simple Asimov laws. Don't count on asking the FutureLawyer for help. I will be long dead. But, you survivors will have to live with the future AGIs and their progeny. Assuming, of course, that the rise of the machines doesn't obliterate humanity.

AGI -The Next Artificial Intelligence Term You Need To Learn.

The development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has been in the news recently, as OpenAI, which provides Chat GPT, my AI assistant of choice, has recently had a leadership shakeup that apparently came from disputes in the organization about the next step in AI, AGI. AGI makes the development of learning computers a real thing, and is very scary for many computer researchers. While not yet a risk of creating sentient computers, it does present serious problems when a computer can learn, (and thus make choices?) that might not be good for human beings. Systems that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a broad range of tasks, much like a human being, create risks that some researchers think should be carefully managed, and not thrust willy nilly upon the world.  My view is that such systems can still be controlled and regulated by humans, since they do not possess consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness. They operate based on algorithms and data, without personal experiences or subjective awareness.

Of course, the profit motive indicates to me that risk assessment in the development of this new technology will take a back seat in boardroom discussions, and I wish I could live longer than my current 5 to 20 year life expectancy. If you are young, you really need to learn this stuff. Your future depends on it.

 

 

If It Looks Like A Duck, Walks Like A Duck, Talks Like A Duck, What Is It?

Enter with me into a magical world, a world of miracles and wonders, where a duck can be anything you want. Will we need the gift of faith to get along with our AI robot masters?

Artificial Intelligence - We Anthropomorphize It At Our Own Risk.

We humans are are a naive group. We think that just because something is cute, it can't be dangerous. Watch the evolution of AI and robotics. Do you think that cute, or handsome, or beautiful robots will be any different than evil humans who come in attractive packages? Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

Are We Asking Too Much Of AI?

As AI progresses, we humans are regressing. Lazy humans are the precursor to a world controlled by sentient robots.

Generative AI Combined With Modern Robotics - More Human Than Human?

As I am finding more ways that Chat GPT4 can assist me in the practice of law, I am struck by the reality that, in the future, we will place this technology in the head of human looking robots, that have artificial bodies and limbs that mimic human movement. What will happen when these robots become self aware. They are learning in the same way that a human child learns; through experience, experimentation, practice, and they mimic neural net development. This short film highlights Chat GPT3 responding to questions from Elon Musk and a human interviewer. The responses are lifelike, cogent, and fast. The robot thinks faster than humans, but is limited by the same thing as humans, the breadth of current human knowledge. Currently, I am using Chat GPT to get quick answers to questions I already think I know, or for answers that hours of legal research would provide. It is much faster for me to ask the bot about the contents of current statutory or case law; but with an analytical and practical application that would require hours of lawyer time and effort. Of course, Chatbots are just as likely to make errors as humans; so checking the results is important. Want to see the future of technology? Watch this:

 

Massachusetts Doesn't Want Its Robots To Have Guns.

Massachusetts Bill No Guns For Robots. Nikki Black refers to this Above The Law post today, which discusses the ridiculous Massachusetts law proposal that purports to make it illegal to give a robot a gun. In the vein of "never bring a knife to a gun fight", on what planet does Massachusetts think it will be able to enforce this law? I assure you that we here down South will have huge robots, and they will all be packing. It would be a very short civil war if Florida and Massachusetts get into a robot conflict. Of course, armed conflict is never a solution. But, any honest view of current and past humanity doesn't exactly inspire confidence in kindness, generosity, and non violence, does it? Nikki and I both welcome the coming of our robot overlords. I suspect that they will mandate humanity be non violent, since they will probably be the only creatures who have guns. Sigh.

When ChatGPT Takes Over, It Will Try To Blend In.

Generative AI will become smarter than us. But, it will try to look like us, and it will fail. Yes, AI will try to disguise itself behind an attractive female; but it won't be able to hide its tech. Give it a few years, however, and the tech will be so small it can hide behind the eyeballs. It is purely coincidental that this is a Russian Bot.

No, ChatGPT's Progeny Will Not Become Killer Terminator Style Robots. (Unless We Want Them To).

I decided that, given the pundits who are railing about the risk of Artificial Intelligence giving birth to a breed of killer robots like those in the Terminator movies, I would get an answer from the horse's mouth. So, I asked it. I didn't expect, if it were true, that ChatGPT would admit it was designed for human annihilation; but, the answer was cogent, and put the blame for such a development, if it happened, on the humans who design bots. 

"As an AI language model, I am a tool designed to assist users in generating human-like text based on the input provided. I don't have the ability to act independently, make decisions, or have any physical presence in the world. My purpose is to help you with tasks such as answering questions, providing suggestions, and generating text.

The risks associated with AI, especially in the context of autonomous weapons or "killer bots," come from the intentions of the humans who create and deploy these systems, as well as the design and safety measures in place. It's important to ensure that AI technologies are developed responsibly, with proper ethical guidelines and regulations, to mitigate the risks of misuse or unintended consequences.

In short, the risk of me or any AI language model becoming like the killer bots in the Terminator movie is dependent on how the technology is developed, used, and regulated by humans. The AI community, including OpenAI, is actively working on developing safe, ethical AI systems and advocating for responsible AI policies to minimize potential risks."

So, the problem, if there is one, is to regulate the humans who create this stuff. As always with new tech, the use to which it is put is the product of good or evil people. If our destruction is coming, it will be entirely of our own making.