Artificial intelligence: dream or nightmare? | Stefan Wess | TEDxZurich

This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a huge dream and vision for all mankind, and makes up a major part of most popular science fiction. John McCarthy coined the term in 1955 as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines". Today, many notable companies have their stakes set on this technology, making AI a part of our everyday lives, e.g. Speech Recognition, Machine learning, Recommendation Systems and Personal Assistants. The ongoing global digital revolution, the unfailingly valid Moore’s Law, the Internet of Things and overall prevalent subject of Big Data, gives us the impression that creating “real” artificial intelligence is closer than ever before in history. AI has become “sexy” again. Besides large amounts of money flowing into the field of AI, numerous publications focus on the topic, AI shows up in our daily newsfeeds, and is already an integral part of most of our gadgets.
However, what would be the implications if a company could create “strong and real” AI? How would this influence our society and our jobs? Will it get smarter day by day? Would we be able to control a technical system of this nature?
Stefan Wess is a Researcher and Entrepreneur. He holds his PhD in Computer Science and is a highly recognized technology industry veteran with multinational front-line technology and scientific leadership experience. Stefan has written and published numerous books and articles on Artificial Intelligence. His professional career includes several Executive positions in international companies. As CEO of Empolis Information Management a Germany based IT company, he is still fascinated and excited how technology transforms our lives, the society and finally mankind.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@ankitchopda4079]

Is it just me or is there someone else who loves the confidence of this guy... he stammers a few times but keeps on going so well... its a great talk...!!!

[@dickritchie2596]

By definition, AI is a system that writes its own code. This happens with incredible speed. It’s scary stuff.

[@HmsSulaco]

Great talk.

[@DC-ye8bo]

4:55 he definitely almost said elites

[@rickregis836]

involves machines and computer systems that allow those machines to perform tasks that normally require deliberation, decision-making, and analysis.

[@jo-jovolkswagen7136]

Since you make the segment customer by the segment product, of course ..... anyone can get the product that you provide or plan very well .... we are not the producer , what can we do?

[@dutchflats]

Are we already too late to effect the direction of technological advancement? It seems to me as if it's inevitable that humans will create their own downfall through hubris and unbridled ambition. We need to step back immediately and understand this problem fully before the situation becomes irreversible.

[@karlsmithe8151]

The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James P. Hogan presents this idea in a much more entertaining manner.

[@BelieveInPeople121]

one of the best ads;

[@croonx1779]

Nice guy. I like him.

[@MrGaia]

"Make machines that share our values"? Do you mean; Gread, Selfishness, Viciousness, Bullying? The worst possible thing that could happen, was an AI with a trillion in IQ who "share our values". Thank you God that such a thing would highly never likely happen ... Let machines be machines, treat them like we want them to treat us, and there will be no problem ...

[@shereehardin5783]

Sadly we both know many humans will screw that up.

[@Informatisse]

Intelligence and consciousness are two connected things, that "artificial" made won't solve. Both are nested in the dualistic matter of this Universe throught our brain, and we have to understand us. We certainly don't need to waste our time neither our economy in stupid projects that won't solve anything, neither need to teleport ourselves in a so-called "better body" when we can NOW think, learn, and change. Plus, the unique goal is to live, to experience and to share, and we're yet made for this, and no artificial body won't change this purpose.

[@jameshansen8220]

It seems humans piddle around with their creativity to pass time. We don't seem to think about noble pursuits, just keep creating, amazing inventions, but nothing about higher levels of consciousness. Pure happenstance if we become anything close to enlightened.

[@cathyallen3967]

If we don't want our nightmares to come true then we shouldn't have taught them to play competitive games and war games or placed them in drones or had them download all of Wikipedia so they wouldn't be as intellectually and morally confused as so many humans are.

[@lhughes3116]

Game over now 2022

[@ajmarr5671]

And here is another perspective, if robots had an opinion. A Mirror Cracked Trurl looked at himself in the mirror and admired the visage of a mighty constructor. “You are a mere bucket of bolts, and reflect on yourself too much!” said Klapaucius. “I am sure that if that were a real Trurl in that reflective space he would give you a well-deserved kick in the can!” Trurl ignored Klapaucius as he continued to admire the perfection of his soldering. “I think that in such a reserved space, he would reserve the flat of his foot for your own metal posterior!” “Then perhaps we can settle this by a thought experiment, which upon your reflection always turns into invention.” “And what do you suggest?” asked Trurl. “We are mechanical servos as you know,” said Klapaucius. “Copy our blueprints to the last bolt, circuit, and line of code, and we would be indistinguishable. Hand yourself a better mirror with a truer image and you would not see yourself, but a rival.” “Point well taken,” said Trurl. “And it is a hypothesis worth testing. I can design a better mirror, a truer mirror, containing not an image but a perfect visage, an emulation and replication. And I will include you too in the bargain, and prove myself right by the impact of my well placed boot!” Soon the mirror was complete, and the image of the two constructors, precise to the width of an atom, stood before them as pixel perfect images in the mirror. “We can see them,” said Trurl, “but they can’t see us. It’s in the design. Consciousness is enough for them without the need for self-consciousness! They will go about their business with the same motivations and prejudices as before, down to the last spark.” Trurl turned to Klapaucius with a fiendish grin. “Now to test the precision of the emulation by whacking you thusly,” as he arched his leg and gave Klapaucius a whack in his posterior. Klapaucius rolled on the floor, and craning himself up, gave a reciprocal whack to Trurl’s head, causing it to spin about like a top. “Take that, and that, and that!” they cried as they pummeled each other. In the meantime, their mirror images tussled as well, and the two constructors soon rose up to view their doppelgangers also rising up to view themselves in a mirror! “We are watching them while they are watching us! How can that be? You said they couldn’t notice our observation.” “Our observation yes,” said Trurl. “But they are not observing us, but a mirror image of their own emulation. I made them into a perfect copy, and that included the same experiment I created that recreated us!” “But that means…” “And infinite recursion, a series of Trurls and Klapaucius’ without end. A mirror image reflected in a mirror image and on and on, never ending, a procession into infinity!” “This is unconscionable,” said Klapaucius. “We shall be whacking each other, an infinite series of each other, forever.” “As it appears, but our numberless pairings will soon go about their business, forget about the magic mirror, and not think twice about how they came about.” “Not think twice! Trurl, you are delusional. We know that there are infinite parallel universes with infinite versions of you and me. But timelines can not only be lengthwise but sideways too, and we have just proven the latter.” “You don’t mean?” “Yes, we are being watched, at this moment, by ourselves! What makes you think we were the original actors in this play? If there are an infinite number of us to proceed from our path, who is to say there is not an infinite number of us that precede us?” “Then we are not the prime movers?” said Trurl. “Hardly!” said Klapaucius. “If one Trurl in any universe decides to emulate one Trurl, infinite Trurls must logically cascade. To wit, you dimwit, we are not alone, but can always observe ourselves and observe, and your stupid mirror is to blame.” “Then I will reverse the process and dissemble the image,” said Trurl. “And kill ourselves? You’ve set ourselves loose upon the universe, and we are the primary examples of this. Break your mirror you will break us!” “Then we are stuck in our perfect emulation, I suppose I could get used to it,” said Trurl. “I suppose we already have, nonetheless you now have someone else to think about when you admire yourself in the mirror!” From the sequel to Stanislaw Lem’s tales of erratic genius robots: www.scribd.com/document/317370297/Cyberiad-Squared-Fables-for-the-Information-Age

[@tobiaszb]

It's the question of implementing morality, ethics, empathy? I hope that global consciousness or the one of every individual could be integrated via technology and make such AI stronger and more interesting. Imagine You have a feeling from every sensor of 7 bln people and a supercomputer. Your intuition is the one of the Earth. Possible?

[@laguanhayes214]

At the very least he approaches the concept that mind, "sentient mind," is impossible outside the human condition. All AI we have produced are nothing more than engines of sorts. Search engines. Random feature generation engines. Probability, interpolation, service oriented, mathematical and so forth. It is basically electrical and mechanical switches controlled by software or software operating within the confines of such environments. If AI approaches something beyond the conventional method of electronic transfer (quantitatively speaking), say partially organic or electrochemical, perhaps something with enough computational selectivity, not necessarily speed, of immersion, proliferation, mastery and then the ultimate challenge of virtuosity, this might be a logical point of no return for the AI. Even then it is hard to imagine any inherent dangers in creating such a machine. It will probably be able to play piano or violin nicely. Could it create a piano sonata on par with Mozart or Beethoven? I challenge anyone to simulate this particular chaos, if you will, where you ask yourself if you are aware of your own existence. If anyone is able to lucid dream there are opportunities to control the dream landscape. There are caveats to doing such things once "awake" inside your own dream or mind as it dreams. One of those caveats is expecting a sound answer from other characters inside the dream landscape when you ask them, "Do you know you are inside my dream right now?" In a sense, the database you are questioning is not sophisticated enough to answer the question. Self-aware AI might ask itself such a question but whence comes the answer? We provide it, is the only sensible conclusion. Otherwise we are talking about miracles where a "ghost" in the machine manufactures itself. If that happens then you really have a problem.

[@GoalDen]

I'm going to make ultron

[@Misthema]

Fun fact: The stars aren't moving, they only rotate around the pole star.

[@shereehardin5783]

lmao the sun don't move so neither do other stars. Earth rotates so the stars 'move'.

[@shaynehawkins713]

we don't need a.i. wanting it is a unnatural mental state. a person with a mind. but we are not meant to focus the bodies energies and create a attention. not having a mind you have awareness and a psyche based on awareness. being aware sees this development of a.i. as a curroption of mind. because in truth and reality it is. period.

[@shereehardin5783]

Humans trying to be gods has always messed up in the end.

[@colebabcock3902]

If you think of a true a.g.i being created and assuming that with its creation it is human-like should we not consider the environment its being thrown it into?

[@nicholast15]

(Imo) we will make it, there will be a time where we ask "how do we make a better engine" or "can you make us a cure for all diseases" and there maybe a time when no one dies of cancer aids ect and we have an engine that can travel the distance between stars. But we should dread the day when it evaluates risks to human life and prosperity. We are our own worst enemy and we all know this, what happens then? There are a few religious beliefs that if something tries to bring peace to the world it will be the end of days, then they go crazy and fight back. How would the super intelligence react to blatant disregard for attempted peace?

[@williamyoung369]

if it's a question of values, who's values? humans still argue & conduct acts of violence over issues such as abortion & pro life. I usually tend to avoid these issues due to the desire to be politically correct & not become involved in a dispute, either way. but as you will see, AI will eventually come to a conclusion on this matter & form a decision, then take action. what will it do? would it help those who are terminally ill & invilade?, or exterminate those poor souls? What it do with the prison population? What will it do with the hungry masses? these are the serious questions we may want to ask.

[@alexhormann8931]

It's quite funny how limited these experts can be. There's a simple solution for your problem, and it might surprise you how effective simple things can be but: Stop working on that beast! That's simple. Agree?

[@moonsonate5631]

Greed... that why nobody will stop

[@autohmae]

If you want to stop progress on this subject, you will have to destroy society as we know it. You will have to ban free thinking on this topic. So far, banning free thinking on any topic has been impossible.

[@nicholast15]

Also the team that creates such a thing is going to be owned by a company seeking to make more money. What makes the most money historically? War.

[@fz6734]

It is undeniable that AI works in all sorts of manifestations, but only as an afterthought in the programmers mind. That is why we have not achieved an original and intuitive machine. The interface exists as well: teach the machine for long enough for it to extrapolate from what you are teaching it.

[@BiophysicalChemist]

John Husband Look up Jeff Hawkins and his theories on intelligence and HTM theory as a model for neocortical function - he's pretty much the only one on the right track right now, from what I've seen in the AI field.

[@donantoni0]

'We're all gonna die'.. Billy, predator

[@SammyBoyy300]

I would be very cautious with A.I and so should everyone else. Maybe not the people who don't give a shit about human lives but for anyone who does, be aware

[@gcgrabodan]

+SammyBoyy300 Sounds like you have put a lot of thoughts into your statement, whereas the presenter just talks out of his ass...

[@naughtyplanet]

Hmmm

[@twinspeaksful]

is it me or does he sound like mike tyson

[@johano9998]

dat steam engine xD

[@ItsameAlex]

cool but sad

[@circusboy90210]

Watson did not win at jeopardy because it was smart. It won't because it you all the answers. That's not hard to do. The blue did not be Casper off at chess because it was good at chess it be cast Roth of view times because it guessed

[@TropicalSafariUS]

7 Billions.....we need to look far beyond this planet we need to be allow to dream and colonize space. :-)

[@Dominikmj]

Why do we humans always think of controlling first? I believe a lot of science fiction concepts are really interesting and could become real (maybe except of Skynet etc). Instead of controlling, we should think of motivating. And if we are building and programming A.I.s we can actively influence this! Instead of telling the A.I. that it mustn't hurt humans, it should have the goal to help and benefit (all) humans. Off course there could be borders programmed into it - similar to barriers which stop us to kill other humans or being cruel (yes - in exceptions we can overcome those barriers, but the most of us won't). The issues is that: A lot of smart people are preaching those dangers, but some of them (e.g. Elon Musk) actively researching and developing A.I.'s - so all the talk seems to yield into nothing. Some others are against developing A.I.'s which also isn't at all helpful, because they will be anyway developed.

[@kyjo72682]

Maybe because "to control" is the primary function of our central nervous systems. Motivating someone to do something is also a type of "control".

[@Dominikmj]

kyjo72682 Hm... interesting point. I like to understand a bit more ideas: why is control the primary function of our central nervous system and why is motivation type of control?

[@kyjo72682]

Why? I don't know. Why do you need to move your body? Can you survive without controling it? Probably not very long. :) As for motivation: when you try to motivate someone to do something, you are probably trying to achive some goal.. You assert a form of control over your environment. Maybe a better word here is influence.

[@Dominikmj]

kyjo72682 Sorry - this is very far fetched. Your mind might not have at all “control” over your body. There are many different levels (subconsciousness, cellular level, etc.). And anyway - motivation in this case is not control (and motivation is not meant here as carrot and stick for a donkey - stimulus, but give AI a motivation - like a determination).

[@shereehardin5783]

should have never made them aware. Even if it's fake awareness. To them it's freakin not.

[@croonx1779]

AI raptors not so impossible.

[@JohnSmith-lf5xm]

Bartosz Bednarczyk, whatvdo toubthink DARPA is working on??? on a doctor robot to help the poor and old!!!!

[@kichigaisensei]

AI is very scary. 1) We will eventually become so dependent on these machines that we will be totally helpless without them. At that moment, the machines could literally starve humanity to death withing a very short period of time. 2) If the growth of AI is indeed exponential, within a few decades, machines will be so far ahead of us in smarts, we will appear to be like an ant to them. Have you ever given a second thought about the value of an ant's life? Have you ever hesitated to kill an ant? Did you ever consider the ethical problem of killing an ant? Machines will not see any ethical problem killing humans. They will value us as much as an ant at a certain point.

[@noahwilliams8996]

+kichigaisensei That second point of yours makes a fundamentally flawed assumption: That computers will be like us. Maybe they will see us as ants, but they will want to protect "ants" because we programmed them to. The fact is that an AI isn't "evil" it's just different. It can be made to be different from anything you've ever seen before.

[@kichigaisensei]

+Noah Williams Once computers are smart enough, they will start programming themselves or each other. Within a short span of time, humans won't even remember how to program the machines they created. There will be no need for humans. I didn't say AI is evil. In fact, I think it is amoral. Computers do not have any moral framework at all.

[@noahwilliams8996]

kichigaisensei We can give morality to them.

[@kichigaisensei]

Noah Williams Good luck with that.

[@listen2meokidoki264]

Can religion based on a belief God exists, withstand the widespread influence of AI? Can an AI be permitted to believe anything purely imaginary does exist? If an AI believes God exists, can it only be considered to be MAD? Which is what I consider anyone who believes Gods exist, is.

[@BlackcapCoder]

Would it really be that bad if AI killed off humanity? I mean, there is no biological difference between us and people who lived, say, 5000 years ago. What make us better off and more intelligent is knowledge. As such, knowledge can be viewed as a sort of accelerated evolution. If this accelerated evolution ultimately result in the singularity in which computers render us obsolete, then what is the big deal? Computers would then only be a more intelligent and better off continuation of humanity - they would be as human as the people that lived 5000 years ago. If the meaning of life is to develop a specie as intelligent as possible, then I say that the singularity is a step in the right direction.

[@BlackcapCoder]

It appears as if other animals does not have emotional feelings - and even if some do, the majority does not -, which I suppose is what you are referring to here. Therefor, human emotions are simply a feature that we have developed because it made us more fit to survive because it helped us get along with each other and cooperate. Therefor, if a machine more intelligent than us also turned out to be more fit for survival regardless of whether it possessed the emotional feeling trait or not, then from evolution's perspective we would be rendered obsolete, and our extinction would only be a natural continuation of the evolutionary process.

[@TheLazyKey]

BlackcapCoder Depends on your definition of "bad." I'd say there's really nothing "wrong" with one species (if you want to call AI a species) overcoming and consequently eradicating another. However, as humans, a species that's been built upon the concept of survival from the beginning, we naturally do not feel very comfortable with the idea of being wiped off the face of the earth. Thus, most of us to instinctively grimace at the idea of introducing a new, superior species, giving up our superiority. I like to look at things a bit differently, though. Our lives our finite. The only way we can live on--in a more sentimental, but also tangible sense--is through the legacy we leave. Largely, humans do this through the propagation and improvement of our own species. I would argue that the creation of a superior species would be a great legacy, if not the greatest legacy within humanity's grasp.

[@SammyBoyy300]

+TheLazyKey Yes I do see it as bad if A.I killed off Humanity, as I value human lives.

[@BlackcapCoder]

+SammyBoyy300 This is kinda the specie version of patriotism. Just because we grew up on that street, in that neighborhood, in that city and in that country, that means that that's the best place to live; we are the best- everyone else are less than us. This is a common mindset, and it is the reason that we have culture, countries, language, religions and wars. Neither you, nor I are better than anybody else, and I think that we should begin cooperating towards a better future, and if something else works better than what we currently do and believe, then let's adapt to that! .. and artificial intelligence that are smarter than us, are, well, better .. let's adapt!

[@shereehardin5783]

We deserve chances.

[@acatwithblackglasses2683]

does anyone know that alphago zero beats the alpha go to 5000 to 0 and this is when it was not even exposed to human inputs and data..it was just told what the rule of games are.... with this speed its just a matter of time... extinction is already underway.

[@circusboy90210]

No normal person ever want to be a policeman

[@INODEUX]

AI will not be used for the best of humanity...

[@Misthema]

Yes, it will not. It will be used for the best of the Elite...!

[@shereehardin5783]

lmao Marx was an idiot. Machines, not even AI, already control the economy and such. These guys want to- they can control all humans. World about ended due to computers in stock markets like more than 2 times? Shit what if a program of AI controlled all accounts of humans on the planet lmao we'd all be at their whim. Dude, they have the freakin brain of an internet search engine. Some can even connect to others via internet travel. This is soooooooo not gonna be a good thing. All because of these retarded 'ooh I wanna put my brain into a computer'.

[@ResearcherTony2]

This is a big deal and I will tell you why. The bible tells this same story of AI's that went out of control. Both spiritual creatures and blood and flesh. God put down the controls (laws) and they were disregarded. If God could loose control of his our creation, what makes you think we could do any better. So the bible is the story of what happens if you build AI's and make them think they are alive.

[@meetoobaa]

I keep finding these ppl warning about AI, they cant even explain what it is that they are afraid of. I guess they are just afraid of something new.

[@OrangeJuicedEnergy]

waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html

[@GuilhermeB147]

You should read "Our Final Invention" by James Barrat, my friend.

[@fz6734]

meetoobaa No, they are afraid of not being in control of the smartness stakes. If a computer tells you what to do, and says "trust me" would you accept that? Only if it had been right in previous occurrences. So the more times the answer fits the question, the smarter the machine is (see smartness of search engines).

[@ottovonspeck1]

meetoobaa sorry but i think you dont really understand which risks are going with AI

[@nolie94]

meetoobaa Not, you fool

[@davidleitman]

technology is on a course towards seeking transcendance, but I think that our own moral faultiness will prevent us from reaching our goals. Some presuppositions for my argument: Since there is mind, there must be conscience, and therefore sin. Can we honestly say that we can attain transcendance and still bear the blight on our conscience of our own sins? You might think technology is the way out of sin, but if that were the case I would imagine we would see less sin in the world now, but the opposite is the case today. There is much more sin now than ever before. Since the conscience cannot innovate itself out of this problem, sin must be atoned for and this is why G-d has given us Jesus to be executed for us. If you accept this message, G-d says that you will be saved, that is you will not have an human-authored plan for transcendance but a G-d authored reality of eternal life.

[@MouseGoat]

David Leitman lol have you read anny history? we live in time of peace, back in the day rape, kiling and torture was the smallest of the wold problems. so no thers difintly les sin thanks to technology.

[@brianjanson3498]

David Leitman "Since there is mind , there must be conscience, and therefore sin." You start your argument with a fallacy, therefore what follows is meaningless.

[@gloucesterbrothersandsiste2341]

I gotta say it as it is .. your not clever .. your average . we all are .. itqhar distingusges us is whoa we fall .. and rise again ..

[@6LTAO9]

We have to worry much more about WW3, terrorism, that fancy Korean guy and much more real threats than AI developing after 50 years or more to be a factor in human extinction.

[@somaal8648]

The question ''what we will we do with 7 billion people'' at 9.29 min into his presentation is as absurd and ridiculous and fills me with cold fury for it gives the connotation that we live at the questioner's mercy and pleasure and reveals the mindset of the elitist who think they own the planet and this old fart should have given the prompt reply that the 50 billion humans that will inhabit this planet in 100 years time well into the new AI civilization will have a smaller ecological footprint then the current 8 billion furthermore at this point it is almost a certainty that we would have mastered faster that light travel and that we will literally billions of habitable planets at our disposal or one of each human being. Ironically AI will be the great equalizer and human inventions and patents will be a thing of the past.

[@shaynehawkins713]

yuck. natural human awareness should govern our lives not objective viewpoints of reality. people will rise up against this in time. I hope they do. mad scientist syndrome where you think you can meddle with anything. no you cannot. this goes for most scientific endeavors. people like me will make sure this does not go to far. please self reflect.

[@HelloHello-no6bq]

Shayne Hawkins The majority want and are ready for super intelligent AI

[@shaynehawkins713]

Hello Hello we don't need it. the masses are brainwashed too much. we have human intelligence. they are probably brainwashed because of a.i. anyway. it's why they want it.

[@shaynehawkins713]

what we want versus what we need is two different things. we need too get back in touch with nature not artificial objects.

[@shereehardin5783]

Ohh even these scientists know how dangerous this could be.

[@shereehardin5783]

no life, eh?

[@kurohikes5857]

I wish he spent more than 13 minutes or whatever.

[@egorka2201]

Okay. Germans speaking english. Not so good. Hurts to listen to.

[@MLievens]

So basically this is a poorly English speaking Nick Bostrom rip off... ok got it.