The Dangers and Ethics of AI
We’ve all heard of self-driving cars, but how about self-flying planes? Earlier this month, DARPA held a contest called AlphaDogfight (https://www.wired.com/story/dogfight-renews-concerns-ai-lethal-potential/). The goal was to see if an AI could be developed to pilot an F-16 in a dogfight situation better than a human can. Teams from several companies competed and eventually the winner battled a highly trained human Air Force pilot in a simulated dog fight. An AI developed by Heron Systems defeated the other AIs and went on to defeat the human pilot as well. It wasn’t just a lucky shot either. There were five test battles and Heron’s AI shot down the human pilot in all five.
The dogfighting AIs were based on a technique called reinforcement learning. It works by supplying the rules of a game and scoring criteria. The AI then plays the game over and over (often against itself, or another AI) keeping track of how well it scores each time, and the plays that led to getting that score. Over time it tries to favor the plays that lead to the highest scores. Imagine an AI learning a game of Tic Tac Toe this way. It knows it can place X’s in any unoccupied space and whoever gets 3 in a row wins the game. Then you give it scoring criteria: 1 point for winning, 0 points for a tie, -1 for a draw. Now the game will play Tic Tac Toe millions of times. It will start off random, but it will learn by remembering what actions led to winning and losing each game. It will try to repeat the things it did in games it won and avoid the things it did in games it lost. You can imagine that it would learn very quickly which moves were optimal. And indeed, just like humans, a correctly programmed AI can never lose at Tic Tac Toe, only win or draw.
Tic Tac Toe is a very small game with limited possibilities compared to flying an F-16. But it turns out that the same techniques can scale to much bigger problems. The AI would probably start out by flying directly into the ground, but after several hundred (or thousand, or even million) attempts maybe it manages to stay in the air for a few minutes. Then it’s going to start repeating what it did to keep flying. Next it will try to figure out how to shoot down the opponent. Billions of attempts later, it will have learned how to fly, manage its weapons, and even evade the opponent. This is very computationally expensive, but modern advances in hardware have made this sort of training viable.
These kinds of applications of AI have raised a lot of ethical concerns. As stated in the Wired article above, an open letter was written encouraging world governments to restrict the use of AI in weapons. This letter was signed by people like the founders of DeepMind, Google’s AI research arm, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk. Some of the key issues surrounding AI weapons are obvious, but some are less so. There are accountability questions of course. When the AI makes a mistake, who’s at fault? Can a programmer be charged with a war crime because there was a bug in their code? Or worse, because the code was functioning properly, but “learned” something unexpected. That’s the easily foreseeable question.
But AI weapons have a unique characteristic. Once you have the software, it’s easy and cheap to make a copy to use in another place. Other weapons of mass destruction often require costly and rare components. Even if I had the plans and expertise to make a nuclear bomb, I can’t actually build one unless I can somehow get some uranium. We can work to keep those resources out of the hands of dictators and terrorists. And even if they get enough to build a bomb, once they’ve used it, it’s used up. With AI software, once they have it, they have it forever and can reuse it indefinitely at essentially no cost. You don’t have to acquire more.
What about the fact that automated weapons will lower the threshold for war? The less we need to use humans to fight, the more willing we will be to fight. On the surface that seems ok, we’re not risking human lives right? But war is always going to be inherently dangerous and lives will be lost. Perhaps they won’t be on the battlefield, perhaps it will be in retaliatory attacks on civilian targets from an overmatched force that doesn’t have the technology to fight the AI, but can certainly blow up a tourist hotel with a car bomb.
Many of the worlds’ greatest minds and experts are the ethics of AI and their answers will shape the future of its use in defense in the coming years.
Hatari na maadili ya AI Sote tumesikia juu ya magari ya kuendesha gari, lakini vipi kuhusu ndege za kuendesha gari? DARPA imepanga mashindano ya kupigana mbwa kwa jina la AlphaDogfight, ambayo ni shindano la mbwa wa aina ya AlphaDogfight. Lengo la utafiti huo lilikuwa kujua kama AI inaweza kuendeshwa na ndege ya F-16 katika hali ya mapigano ya ndege bora kuliko binadamu. Timu kutoka makampuni kadhaa zilishindana na hatimaye mshindi alipigana na rubani wa Jeshi la Anga aliyezoezwa sana katika mapigano ya mbwa yaliyofananishwa. AI iliyotengenezwa na Heron Systems ilishinda AI nyingine na ikaendelea kushinda rubani wa binadamu pia. Haikuwa risasi ya bahati tu pia. Kulikuwa na mapigano matano ya majaribio na Heron's AI ilipiga risasi rubani wa kibinadamu katika yote matano. AI za kupigana mbwa zilitegemea mbinu iitwayo kujifunza kwa kuimarisha. Inafanya kazi kwa kutoa sheria za mchezo na vigezo vya alama. AI hucheza mchezo mara kwa mara (mara nyingi dhidi yake mwenyewe au AI nyingine) na kufuatilia jinsi inavyofunga alama kila wakati, na michezo ambayo ilisababisha kupata alama hiyo. Baada ya muda, inajaribu kuunga mkono michezo inayosababisha alama za juu zaidi. Kwa mfano, fikiria AI inayojifunza mchezo wa Tic Tac Toe. Unaweza kuweka X katika nafasi yoyote isiyo na watu na mtu yeyote anayepata 3 mfululizo anashinda mchezo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""1 pointi kwa kushinda, 0 pointi kwa tie, na -1 kwa draw.""" Sasa mchezo utacheza Tic Tac Toe mamilioni ya mara. Inaanza kwa nasibu, lakini itajifunza kwa kukumbuka ni vitendo gani vilivyoongoza kwenye kushinda na kupoteza kila mchezo. "Atajaribu kurudia mambo aliyofanya katika michezo aliyoishinda na kuepuka mambo aliyofanya katika michezo aliyoipoteza.""" Unaweza kuwazia kwamba ingejifunza upesi sana ni hatua zipi zilizofaa. Kwa kweli, kama wanadamu, AI iliyoandaliwa vizuri haiwezi kamwe kupoteza katika Tic Tac Toe, tu kushinda au kuchora. Tic Tac Toe ni mchezo mdogo sana na uwezekano mdogo ikilinganishwa na kuruka F-16. Lakini inageuka kuwa mbinu hizo hizo zinaweza kupanuka hadi matatizo makubwa zaidi. AI inaweza kuanza kwa kuruka moja kwa moja chini, lakini baada ya mamia kadhaa (au maelfu, au hata milioni) ya majaribio, labda itaweza kukaa hewani kwa dakika chache. Kisha itaanza kurudia kile kilichofanya ili kuendelea kuruka. Ifuatayo itajaribu kujua jinsi ya kumpiga risasi mpinzani. Mabilioni ya majaribio baadaye, itakuwa imejifunza jinsi ya kuruka, kusimamia silaha zake, na hata kuepuka mpinzani. Hii ni computationally ghali sana, lakini maendeleo ya kisasa katika vifaa wamefanya aina hii ya mafunzo viable. Matumizi ya AI ya aina hii yamezua wasiwasi mwingi wa maadili. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya Wired hapo juu, barua ya wazi iliandikwa kuhamasisha serikali za ulimwengu kuzuia matumizi ya AI katika silaha.""" Barua hiyo ilitiwa saini na waanzilishi wa DeepMind, kampuni ya Google inayoshughulikia utafiti wa AI, na Stephen Hawking. Baadhi ya masuala muhimu yanayohusu silaha za AI ni dhahiri, lakini mengine ni kidogo hivyo. Bila shaka kuna maswali ya uwajibikaji. Wakati AI inafanya kosa, ni nani mwenye kosa? Je, programu inaweza kushtakiwa kwa uhalifu wa vita kwa sababu kulikuwa na mdudu katika kanuni yao? Au mbaya zaidi, kwa sababu code ilikuwa kazi vizuri, lakini <unk>alijifunza<unk> kitu zisizotarajiwa. Hilo ndilo swali linaloweza kutabiriwa kwa urahisi. Lakini silaha za AI zina sifa ya kipekee. Mara baada ya kuwa na programu, ni rahisi na nafuu kufanya nakala ya kutumia katika mahali pengine. Mara nyingi silaha nyingine za uharibifu mkubwa huhitaji vipengele vya bei ghali na visivyo vya kawaida. Hata kama ningekuwa na mipango na utaalam wa kutengeneza bomu la nyuklia, siwezi kuunda moja isipokuwa niweze kupata uranium kwa njia fulani. """Tunaweza kufanya kazi ili kuhifadhi rasilimali hizo kutoka kwa wakuu wa serikali na magaidi." Na hata kama wanapata kiasi cha kutosha cha kutengeneza bomu, mara tu wanapotumia, limetumika. Kwa programu ya AI, mara tu wanapoipata, wanaiweza milele na wanaweza kuitumia tena kwa muda usiojulikana bila gharama yoyote. Huna haja ya kupata zaidi. Namna gani kuhusu ukweli kwamba silaha za kiotomatiki zitapunguza kizingiti cha vita? Kadiri tunavyohitaji wanadamu kidogo kupigana, ndivyo tutakavyokuwa tayari kupigana. Kwa nje hiyo inaonekana sawa, sisi si kuhatarisha maisha ya binadamu haki? Lakini vita daima itakuwa hatari na maisha yatapotea. Labda hawatakuwa kwenye uwanja wa vita, labda watakuwa katika mashambulizi ya kulipiza kisasi dhidi ya malengo ya kiraia kutoka kwa nguvu iliyoshindwa ambayo haina teknolojia ya kupigana na AI, lakini hakika inaweza kulipua hoteli ya watalii na gari bomu. "Wanafunzi wengi wa akili na wataalamu wa ulimwengu wa ""maadili ya AI"" na majibu yao yatabuni siku zijazo za matumizi yake katika ulinzi katika miaka ijayo."