issue of ethics, pondering how to keep algorithms aligned with human
goals and values.
Values, in this case, doesn’t mean a constitution or any other
codified civil mandate; it means understanding how people feel about
things.
UNETHICAL SUPPER
34
Stuart Russell, UC-Berkeley computer science professor and AI pioneer,
tells the hypothetical story of the family robot preparing supper
and learning there’s no source of protein in the refrigerator—when
the family cat walks by.
“The robot can’t understand that the sentimental value of the cat
outweighs the nutritional value,” he says. “That’s a human value we
have to make sure the robot possesses.”
The call for more discussions around machine ethics has come
from groups ranging from British Parliament to the Future of Life Institute,
which in October 2017, crafted the Asilomar AI Principles—23
tenets that outline how humans should govern artificial intelligence.
The groups seem to be in agreement on some simple things, such
as transparency, subservience among robots, and the fact that each
algorithm must tie back to an accountable human. They also call for
design that minimizes the risk of misuse and strongly state that AI
must exist for the betterment of humans.
“We’re at an inflection point in society where some of these technologies
are going to change everything—are going to change what
it means to be human,” Halverson says. “It feels like there are not
enough people minding the store on these technologies.”
According to Halverson, there are no design standards and very
few boundaries being carefully and precisely set. Plus, many algorithms
are black boxes that don’t open. Like in Star Trek, as long as
the algorithm achieves its goal, we may not know what route it took
to get there or how it came up with the approach—the algorithms
remain sealed.
“They need a ‘WHY’ button, where you can hit the button and find
out how it got to where it is,” Halverson says.
AGENTS OF UNCERTAINTY
AI thinkers like Russell and Grace are increasingly saying that building
in protective systems at the end of the design is too late. Instead,
there should be an underlying core of self-definitions for the intel-