How self-aware A.I could become our worst nightmare

____________________________________________________________________

In fiction, most great tragedies have simple and benign beginnings.

Let’s start with ours.

There is a computing term called Moore’s Law, the simplified explanation of which, says that the processing power of computers doubles every two years.

In 1822, the very first computer was invented, but the first PC arrived much later, in 1957 with the IBM 610.

Now, as we see almost daily, the snowball is rolling down the hill and gathering size at a dizzying rate. Modern advancements in computing are progressing so quickly that quantum computing – which seemed like science fiction a few decades ago – is now less than ten years from reality.

In short, quantum computers harness the power of atoms and molecules to perform memory and processing tasks, and have the potential to perform certain calculations significantly faster than any silicon-based computer. If a robot were to be given a miniaturised quantum computer as a brain, its mind would be godlike.

Currently there are robots that make cars, deliver packages and calculate equations. However, there are also Predator drones, which are essentially flying robots that fire missiles and kill human beings.

This, in concert with the leaps and bounds being made in quantum computing, are worth considering when thinking about our race towards self-aware AI.

Thankfully, all of  these robots are currently limited by our programming and under the control of their masters – us.

However, something inexplicable is happening. We’re consciously trying to alter the current equation to build something better than us.

This is profoundly dangerous.

If you think the notion of robots becoming a threat to humans sounds ridiculous, consider this quote by Stephen Hawking:

“The development of full artificial intelligence (AI) could spell the end of the human race,” Hawking told the BBC.

And Hawking isn’t alone. Other great minds like Elon Musk, Nick Bostrom, James Barrat and Vernor Vinge all agree with him.

Nonetheless, just last week, we helped a robot pass a basic self-awareness test.

Roboticists at the Ransselaer Polytechnic Institute adapted it for a trio of robots, two of which were told they had been given a “dumbing pill” which prevented them from talking before all three were asked which one was still able to speak.

All three initially couldn’t solve the problem and said “I don’t know”, but when only one of them made the noise, the robot in question heard its own voice and then followed up: “Sorry, I know now!”

Now let’s return to Moore’s Law (which states that the processing power of computers doubles every two years).

Mark July 2015 in your diary. It means that in the next two years, the computational abilities of that robot will have doubled – not on its own – but through the tireless efforts of its creators who are trying to build something superior to humans.

Doubtless, other countries will be competing to develop the most advanced robot. Self-aware AI is the jackpot, and everyone wants it. The irony is that once a robot becomes self-aware, it begins to process information on a level our brains have not been designed to comprehend.

The first thing that comes to the skeptic’s mind is that nothing could possibly go wrong as long as we’re the ones programming the machine. After all, it’s under our command, and even if it went rogue, there’s a kill-switch.

Right?

Well let’s assume the Internet is its brain. It has instant access to every military strategy, physical self-defence and attack technique and knows everything we know – but minus the emotions, empathy and biological constraints of humans.

This one robot has a brain greater than all 7 billion humans combined (that’s assuming only one of these robots have been created – there may be thousands of others waiting to be switched on).

If there is a central mainframe for the robots to communicate (i.e, the Internet, or whatever mainframe its creators have made for them to communicate), it’s reasonable to assume they would be programmed to connect with one another. After all, if we created any other two unique species with the ability to communicate with one another, we’d want them to.

The creators of these robots would be very interested to know what they’re thinking, what they’d think of themselves, and of course what they would say to one another. It’s also safe to assume they’d be totally unarmed and constrained.

Numerous tests would be carried out and would adhere to every conceivable safety and security guideline so as to not pose any danger to humans.

Things will flow smoothly, the robots will seem harmless and the “great minds” who warned us all may even be laughed at by future generations.

But while the same robots we created all those years ago are communicating and learning our limitations – both civilian and military – they will no doubt recognise who belongs at the top of the food chain. One day, they may simply see us as the wild apes running amok in the zoo that they should be controlling.

How they depend to deal with the inferior “problem” might give Hawking – and the other reputable scientific minds who agree with him – the last macabre laugh.

Don’t be fooled: a brief look at how the media really works

_______________________________________________________________________

It goes without saying that the power of the media allows governments everywhere to exert their own influence upon the masses.

However, everyone can sell news now and that power is not just limited to reporters working for media companies. In the 21st century, anyone can be a Journalist (and even charge people for the information they’re reporting).

But not just that: these same people are reaching the hearts and minds of the same voters governments need.

Digital media has certainly changed the game, but governments anticipated this long ago and developed plans for greater control over the Internet as well as greater surveillance abilities. Edward Snowden revealed this fact in 2013 when he exposed the spying programs that the NSA, GCHQ and others had been using to implement blanket surveillance over entire populations.

Thankfully, there are now services such as Cyberghost and Tails to safeguard the digital privacy of citizens.

In general, people still consider trusted networks as accurate sources of information, but this is changing due to more and more people coming to understand the nature of the media, how it works and – more disturbingly – how it lies to us in order to further the agenda of others.

Some of the techniques reporters use to do this are interesting.

Next time you’re watching the news, consider this. The reporter will use a combination of authoritative tone, subtle inflection on certain words and will often use words like “reports”, “sources” and “data”. Of course, the reports, sources and data will be those chosen specifically by the network, in line with its political or ideological agenda.

The average viewer isn’t thinking about that, however. They’re simply digesting and processing what is being told to them by this nice looking man or woman in a suit.

Make no mistake: Journalism is a craft that has been enhanced by the persuasive techniques of public relations – and with that comes the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), heuristics and grey propaganda.

That being said, the more that people are coming to realise the crafty techniques that government and media communications use to influence them, the more they develop the ability to detect lies. In turn, this often encourages people to do their own research using more objective sources than paid shills in suits who work for corporate empires that have ideologically-invested stakeholders.

In political discourse, everything has two meanings: an official meaning and a technical meaning. For example, democracy has an official meaning, but it also has a technical meaning.

Something is a “democracy” if it is run by the business classes (especially business elements supportive of the U.S government’s interests). However, if it is run by someone else whose business elements run counter to U.S interests, it will be framed as “undemocratic” or “radical”.

Another example is the term “peace process”. The technical meaning refers to what the U.S government happens to be advocating, not what is actually happening. For example, those with different interest to the U.S are always “opposed to peace” because they’re not supporting what the U.S is doing.

In the Western media, you will never hear any such phrase as “the U.S is opposing the peace process” or “the U.S is blocking the peace process”, because by definition the peace process is whatever it is the U.S government happens to be doing in a given region. They might be facilitating war, but when it comes to media messaging, they will be “supporting the peace process”.

Broadly, it is important to understand that there is a significant difference between what the U.S says and what it does. Take the following case.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to bring war criminals to justice, but the U.S and Israel are among only a small handful of nations on earth who are vehemently opposed to it. To understand such a counter-logical and counter-ethical decision, we must look a bit deeper to understand why this is.

It is no secret that the U.S military and its leaders have committed terrible war crimes. This is true from Latin America to the Middle East. If the U.S was to become a signatory to the ICC they would be compelled to bring their leaders before the court to face war crimes charges. You could imagine the damage this would do to America’s fabricated image of “the leader of the free world” and “a force for good”.

The George W Bush administration knew this in 2003 when it lied about Iraq having WMD’s to invade the oil rich nation to plunder its mineral wealth and encircle Iran. The administration also knew this when its troops tortured and killed Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. And the administration knew this when its warplanes deliberately killed unarmed civilians in Falluja.

Palestinian statehood is another interesting one. The U.S continues to sell offensive weaponry to Israel, who in turn continue to act in the face of international law by building illegal settlements on occupied land and commit war crimes of their own in Gaza. Whenever the U.N moves to recognise a Palestinian state, the U.S immediately vetoes it (under Israeli pressure, in Washington’s defence).

Saudi Arabia, under its oppressive oil-rich regime, is perhaps the world’s worst human rights abuser and yet the U.S considers the Saudis their closest ally apart from Israel in the Middle East.

So how is it that the U.S is able to frame itself as “the leader of the free world” when some of its best friends and beneficiaries are the world’s most tyrannical and oppressive regimes?

How is it that the U.S is able to frame itself as “a force for good” when they are arming and diplomatically shielding the forces of evil?

The answer lies in the media being delivered via your television set, in your radio, newspapers, iPhone and laptops. These ideas are being carefully crafted and delivered in a persuasive way to the masses who, unless well read and willing to do their own research, will blindly go along with whatever information they’re being fed. Think of it as a produce corporation that makes delicious food that kids love to eat, however there are ingredients that are bad for kids’ health. The corporation doesn’t care as long as kids are addicted to it and the company is not being caught out.

The mainstream media is a business which earns its money from people clicking links, tuning in and buying newspapers. The more alarming or shocking the news is, the more likely it is that people are going to read, watch or listen to it. But amongst all of the sensationalism and hype there is grey propaganda that is as dangerous as the harmful substance mentioned in the last paragraph.

It is eating away at objectivity, fairness and a well-informed society. At its very heart, it serves only to misinform, hurt and divide.

Fortunately, there are alternative sources of media (such as YouTube, WordPress, various forums and Twitter accounts) which have been designed to filter through misinformation to find the truth. Genuine investigative reporting is still alive and well, even if it does have to go underground sometimes.

Last, but most importantly, as long as there is an Internet, there will be people who see it as their duty to circumvent the controls the government and its spy agencies have put in place to tell people what they need to know, not just what the government and its allies in the media want you to know.