Connectionists: Can AI research be stopped? No, but it should become more open, democratic and scientific

[pitas at csd.auth.gr]

Can AI research be stopped? No, but it should become more open, democratic and scientific

 

Can AI research stop even temporarily? In my view, no,  as AI is the response of humanity to a global society and physical world of  ever-increasing complexity. As the physical and social complexity increase processes are very deep and seeming relentless,  AI and citizen morphosis are our only hope to have a smooth transition from the current Information Society to a Knowledge Society. Else, we may face a catastrophic social implosion. 

 

Maybe we reached the limits of AI research being engineered primarily by Big Tech companies, while treating powerful AI systems (like LLMs) almost as marvelous black boxes, whose functionality (the why?)

Is very poorly understood, both due to lack of access of technical details and due to the huge AI system complexity. Naturally, this lack of knowledge and a related  confusion as to the nature of human and 

machine intelligence entails very serious social risks. It seems that the Open Letter reflects both welcomed genuine concerns on the social risks as well as financial concerns on risk management related, e.g.,    

to future AI investments or the possibility of massive expensive lawsuits (in an unregulated and un-legislated environment) in case things go wrong. However, I doubt if the proposal for a six-month

ban on large scale experiments is the solution. It is impractical for geopolitical reasons and can bring too little benefits, particularly if LLM training is targeted, rather than LLM deployment.

Furthermore, the melodramatic tone of this Open Letter can only enhance technophobia in the wider population.

On the other hand, scientific views discounting LLM value (e.g., like the ones expressed by Chomsky) are old-fashioned (reminiscent of perceptron rejection by Minsky and Papert) and not productive either.

 

Of course, AI research can should become different: more open, democratic and scientific. Here is a proposed list of points to this end:

*         The first word on important AI research issues that have far-reaching  social impact should be delegated to elected Parliaments and Governments, rather than to corporations or individual scientists.

*         Every effort should be made to facilitate the exploration of the positive aspects of AI in social and financial progress and to minimize its negative aspects.

*         The positive impact of AI systems can greatly outweigh their negative aspects, if proper regulatory measures are taken. Technophobia is neither justified, nor is a solution. 

*         In my view, the biggest current threat comes from the fact that such AI systems can remotely deceive Too many commoners that have little (or average) education and/or little investigative capacity. This can be extremely dangerous to democracy and any form of socio-economic progress.

*         In the near future, we should counter the big threat coming from LLM and/or CAN  use in illegal activities (cheating in University exams is a rathe benign use in the space of the related criminal possibilities).

*         Their impact on labor and markets will be very positive, in the medium-long run.

*         In view of the above, AI systems should: a) be required by international law to be registered in an ‘AI system register’, and b) notify their users that they converse with or use the results of an AI system.

*         As AI systems have huge societal impact, and towards maximizing benefit and socio-economic progress, advanced key AI system technologies should become open. 

*         AI-related data should be (at least partially) democratized, again towards maximizing benefit and socio-economic progress.

*         Proper strong financial compensation schemes must be foreseen for AI technology champions to compensate any profit loss, due to the fore-said open-ness and to ensure strong future investments in AI R&D (e.g., through technology patenting, obligatory licensing schemes).

*         The AI research balance between Academia and Industry should be rethought to maximize research output, while maintaining competitiveness and granting rewards for undertaken R&D risks.

*         Education practices should be revisited at all education levels to maximize the benefit out of AI technologies, while creating a new breed of creative and adaptable citizens and (AI) scientists.

*         Proper AI regulatory/supervision/funding mechanisms should be created and beefed up to ensure the above.

Several such points were already discussed in the 2021 AI Mellontology workshop and are also included in my recent book on ‘AI Science and Society’ [PIT2023]. 

 

[FUT2023] ‘Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter’,  https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/, 2023

[PIT2023] Ioannis Pitas, “Artificial Intelligence Science and Society Part C: AI Science and Society“ (335 pages), Amazon/Createspace,  https://www.amazon.com/dp/9609156487?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860

 

Best regards

Professor, Chair of the International AI Doctoral Academy (AIDA <https://www.i-aida.org/> )

Ioannis Pitas, pitas at csd.auth.gr



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20230330/b0265b77/attachment.html>