{"title":"人工智能、深度学习和 ALife 的动机:死亡率与生存风险","authors":"Inman Harvey","doi":"10.1162/artl_a_00427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We survey the general trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last century, in the context of influences from Artificial Life. With a broad brush, we can divide technical approaches to solving AI problems into two camps: GOFAIstic (or computationally inspired) or cybernetic (or ALife inspired). The latter approach has enabled advances in deep learning and the astonishing AI advances we see today—bringing immense benefits but also societal risks. There is a similar divide, regrettably unrecognized, over the very way that such AI problems have been framed. To date, this has been overwhelmingly GOFAIstic, meaning that tools for humans to use have been developed; they have no agency or motivations of their own. We explore the implications of this for concerns about existential risk for humans of the “robots taking over.” The risks may be blamed exclusively on human users—the robots could not care less.","PeriodicalId":55574,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Life","volume":"30 1","pages":"48-64"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motivations for Artificial Intelligence, for Deep Learning, for ALife: Mortality and Existential Risk\",\"authors\":\"Inman Harvey\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/artl_a_00427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We survey the general trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last century, in the context of influences from Artificial Life. With a broad brush, we can divide technical approaches to solving AI problems into two camps: GOFAIstic (or computationally inspired) or cybernetic (or ALife inspired). The latter approach has enabled advances in deep learning and the astonishing AI advances we see today—bringing immense benefits but also societal risks. There is a similar divide, regrettably unrecognized, over the very way that such AI problems have been framed. To date, this has been overwhelmingly GOFAIstic, meaning that tools for humans to use have been developed; they have no agency or motivations of their own. We explore the implications of this for concerns about existential risk for humans of the “robots taking over.” The risks may be blamed exclusively on human users—the robots could not care less.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Artificial Life\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"48-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Artificial Life\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10541965/\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Life","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10541965/","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Motivations for Artificial Intelligence, for Deep Learning, for ALife: Mortality and Existential Risk
We survey the general trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last century, in the context of influences from Artificial Life. With a broad brush, we can divide technical approaches to solving AI problems into two camps: GOFAIstic (or computationally inspired) or cybernetic (or ALife inspired). The latter approach has enabled advances in deep learning and the astonishing AI advances we see today—bringing immense benefits but also societal risks. There is a similar divide, regrettably unrecognized, over the very way that such AI problems have been framed. To date, this has been overwhelmingly GOFAIstic, meaning that tools for humans to use have been developed; they have no agency or motivations of their own. We explore the implications of this for concerns about existential risk for humans of the “robots taking over.” The risks may be blamed exclusively on human users—the robots could not care less.
期刊介绍:
Artificial Life, launched in the fall of 1993, has become the unifying forum for the exchange of scientific information on the study of artificial systems that exhibit the behavioral characteristics of natural living systems, through the synthesis or simulation using computational (software), robotic (hardware), and/or physicochemical (wetware) means. Each issue features cutting-edge research on artificial life that advances the state-of-the-art of our knowledge about various aspects of living systems such as:
Artificial chemistry and the origins of life
Self-assembly, growth, and development
Self-replication and self-repair
Systems and synthetic biology
Perception, cognition, and behavior
Embodiment and enactivism
Collective behaviors of swarms
Evolutionary and ecological dynamics
Open-endedness and creativity
Social organization and cultural evolution
Societal and technological implications
Philosophy and aesthetics
Applications to biology, medicine, business, education, or entertainment.