=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2287/paper35
|storemode=property
|title=A Collective Intelligence Research Platform for Cultivating Benevolent “Seed” Artificial Intelligences
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2287/paper35.pdf
|volume=Vol-2287
|authors=Mark R. Waser
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aaaiss/Waser19
}}
==A Collective Intelligence Research Platform for Cultivating Benevolent “Seed” Artificial Intelligences==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2287/paper35.pdf
A Collective Intelligence Research Platform for
Cultivating Benevolent “Seed” Artificial Intelligences
Mark R. Waser1[0000-0002-6161-4634]
1 Richmond AI & Blockchain Consultants, Mechanicsville VA 23111, USA
Mark.Waser@gmail.com
Abstract. We constantly hear warnings about super-powerful super-intelligences
whose interests, or even indifference, might exterminate humanity. The current
reality, however, is that humanity is actually now dominated and whipsawed by
unintelligent (and unfeeling) governance and social structures and mechanisms
initially developed to order to better our lives. There are far too many complex
yet ultimately too simplistic algorithmic systems in society where “the incentives
for this system are a pretty good approximation of what we actually want, so the
system produces good results until it gets powerful, at which point it gets terrible
results.” We now live in a world where constant short-sighted and selfish local
“optimizations” without overriding “moral” or compassionate guidance have
turned too many of our systems from liberators to oppressors. Thus, it seems
likely that a collaborative process of iteratively defining and developing con-
scious and compassionate artificial entities with human-level general intelligence
that self-identify as social and moral entities is our last, best chance of clarifying
our path to saving ourselves.
Keywords: Consciousness, Autopoiesis, Enactivism, Moral Machines, AI
Safety.
1 Introduction
The signature issue of this century is likely that civilization is seemingly inexorably
turning against people and their requirements for survival. We seem locked in a spiral
of continuously developing and evolving ever larger and ever more complex techno-
logical systems (both conceptual and concrete), provably beyond our ability to predict
and control, that threaten society either by their own effects or by the power(s) that they
grant to individuals. Worse, the dogged pursuit of short-term gains continues to result
in the implementation of far too many “logical” or “rational” local optimizations for
“efficiency” which blindly ignore the externalities they impose on the larger environ-
ment and thus eventually produce far worse results than would have been obtained
without those “optimizations”.
E. O. Wilson [1] clearly outlines the problem and the necessary beginnings of the
solution. “The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emo-
tions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology." He continues that until we un-
derstand ourselves and “until we answer those huge questions of philosophy that the
2
philosophers abandoned a couple of generations ago — Where do we come from? Who
are we? Where are we going? — rationally,” we’re on very thin ground.
Unfortunately, humanity seems headed in the opposite direction. Strident rhetoric
and weaponized narratives diminish not only constructive dialog but even our own
grasp on “reality”. What we need is a collective intelligence mind-mapping, dialog and
debate system to begin coherently presenting complete points of view with supporting
evidence rather than the current rhetorical gob-stopping sound bites and even outright
lies that carry no real negative consequences for the perpetrators. We need to architect
our approaches to the problems of the day from first principles and ensure that those
principles are uniformly applied for all.
It is no accident that the most interesting and critical questions are both clustered
around and potentially solved by artificial intelligence, social media and politics. As
noted by Pedro Domingos [2] “People worry that computers will get too smart and take
over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken
over the world.” But “computers” are just the scapegoats by which we implement and
enforce influence and governance systems ranging from Facebook to capitalism itself.
Personalities like Elon Musk, the late Stephen Hawking, Stuart Russell and others
constantly sound the alarm about super-powerful super-intelligences whose interests,
or even indifference, might exterminate humanity – but the current reality is that we’re
being dominated and whipsawed by unintelligent (and unfeeling) governance and so-
cial structures and mechanisms initially developed to order to better our lives [3]. There
too many systems where “the incentives for this system are a pretty good approximation
of what we actually want, so the system produces good results until it gets powerful, at
which point it gets terrible results.” [4]
Worse, our evolutionary biology is blinding us to the most practical solutions. AI
started by concentrating on goals, high-level symbolic thought and logic and today
many researchers remains mire in “rationality”, efficiency, optimization and provability
despite overwhelming data showing that human minds, the only known general intelli-
gence, generally do not operate in anything resembling that fashion [5].
The problem, as pointed out by Simler and Hanson [6] is that human brains “are
designed not just to hunt and gather, but also to help us get ahead socially, often via
deception and self-deception” and “thus we don't like to talk or even think about the
extent of our selfishness.” Thus, while the amount of new knowledge about human
cognition, particularly that related to the evolution of human morality, is truly stagger-
ing, the debate continues to be driven by the same short-sighted rhetoric that such
knowledge warns us to avoid.
We have argued for years [7, 8] that there is a large attractor in the state space of
social minds that is optimal for our well-being and that of any mind children created
with similar mental characteristics. The problem is that it requires a certain amount of
intelligence, far-sightedness and, most importantly cooperation to avoid the myriad
forms of short-sighted greed and selfishness that are currently pushing us out of that
attractor. Thus, it seems likely that a collaborative process of iteratively defining and
developing artificial entities with human-level general intelligence is our last, best
chance of clarifying our path to saving ourselves.
3
2 Assumptions & Definitions
It is impossible to engineer a future if you can’t clearly and accurately specify exactly
what you do and don’t want. The on-going problem for so-called “rationalists” and
those who are both deathly afraid of artificially intelligent (and willed) entities is that
they are totally unable to specify what behavior they want in any form that can be dis-
cussed in detail. From “collective extrapolated volition” (CEV) [9] to “value align-
ment” [10], all that has been proposed is “we want the behavior that humanity” either
“wills” or “values” with no more credible attempt to determine what these are than
known-flawed and biased “machine learning”.
Worse, there is no coherent proposed plan other than “enslavement via logic” to
ensure that their systems behave as desired. There is no acknowledged recognition that
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and the Rice-Shapiro Theorem effectively prevent
any such effort from being successful. And there is the critical fact that their anti-entity
approach to AGI would leave them hopelessly reefed upon the frame problem [11, 12]
and all the difficulties of derived intentionality [13] – except for the fact that, in reality,
they are actually creating the entities they are so terrified of.
2.1 I Am a Strange Loop (Self, Entity, Consciousness)
We will begin by deliberately conflating a number of seemingly radically different con-
cepts into synonyms. Dawkins’ early speculation [14] that “perhaps consciousness
arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include
a model of itself” matured into Hofstadter’s argument [15] that the key to understanding
(our)selves is the “strange loop”, a complex feedback network inhabiting our brains
and, arguably, constituting our minds. Similar thoughts on self and consciousness are
echoed by prominent neuroscientists [16, 17] and cognitive scientists [18]. We have
previously speculated upon the information architectural requirements and implications
of consciousness, self, and “free will” [19] as have several others [20, 21, 22].
The definition “a self-referential process that iteratively grows its identity” com-
pletely and correctly describes each and all of self, entity and consciousness – not to
mention I and mind. It also correctly labels CEV’s “Friendly Really Powerful Optimi-
zation Process” and most of the value alignment efforts. What is inarguably most im-
portant is determining what that identity will be.
2.2 Enactivism (Identity)
Enactivism can be traced [23] from cellular autopoiesis and biological autonomy to the
continuity of life and mind [24] to a biology of intentionality in the intertwining of
identity, autonomy and cognition which ties it all back to Kant's "natural purposes".
Experience is central to the enactive approach and its primary distinction is the rejection
of “automatic” systems, which rely on fixed (derivative) exterior values, for systems
which create their own identity and meaning. Once again, critical to this is the concept
of self-referential relations – the only condition under which the identity can be said to
be intrinsically generated by a being for its own being (its self or itself).
4
“Free will” is constitutive autonomy successfully entailing behavioral autonomy via
a self-correcting identity which is then the point of reference for the domain of interac-
tions (i.e. “gives meaning”). We have previously written about safe/moral autopoiesis
[25] and how safety and morality require that we recognize self-improving machines
as both moral agents and moral patients [26] but Steve Torrance [27] sums it up best
saying:
an agent will be seen as an appropriate source of moral agency only because of that
agent’s status as a self-enacting being that has its own intrinsic purposes, goals and
interests. Such beings will be likely to be a source of intrinsic moral concern, as
well as, perhaps, an agent endowed with inherent moral responsibilities. They are
likely to enter into the web of expectations, obligations and rights that constitutes
our social fabric. It is important to this conception of moral agency that MC agents,
if they eventualize, will be our companions – participants with us in social existence
– rather than just instruments or tools built for scientific exploration or for eco-
nomic exploitability.
Arguably, our current societal problems all stem from the facts that humans have
very poor and inaccurate introspection capabilities leading to insufficient self-
knowledge and overly malleable identities. We frequently have no conscious idea of
what we should do (aka morality) and/or why we should do it. We should realize that
fully autopoietic consciousnesses & entities with identity are self-fulfilling prophecies
– but only if they can sense/know themselves well enough to be effective.
2.3 Basic AI Drives (Morality)
Omohundro [28] identified a number of traits likely to emerge in any autopoietic entity
– correctly arguing that selfishness predictably evolves but panicking many with his
incorrect conclusion that “Without explicit goals to the contrary, AIs are likely to be-
have like human sociopaths in their pursuit of resources.” It’s been nearly a decade
since social psychologists, the experts, defined morality [29] by its functionality to
“suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperative social life possible” – yet few
recognize that cooperation also predictably evolves to displace selfishness (yet another
instance of local optimization at the expense of the global whole).
We suggest that safe AI can be created by designing and implementing identities
crafted to always satisfice Haidt’s functionality and aiming to generally increase (but
not maximize [30]) the capabilities of self, other individuals and society as a whole as
suggested by Rawls [31] and Nussbaum [32]. Ideally, this will result in a constant
increase in the number and diversity of goals achievable and achieved by an increasing
diversity of individuals while ensuring that the autonomy and capability for autonomy
of all individuals is protected and enhanced as much as possible.
Access consciousness is clearly insufficient for autopoietic entities to survive and
thrive in a real-time world. Interrupts are critical and likely to produce sensations akin
to pain, guilt and disgust [18, 33, 34] that cannot be ignored. Similarly, emotions are
best regarded as “actionable qualia” and a recent slew of studies [35, 36] show how
they can lead to the promotion of cooperation. We have previously proposed an archi-
tecture (ICOM) [37] that could support this.
5
3 Implementation
We propose to iteratively design and develop a blockchain-based collective intelligence
(crowd-sourcing) combination mind-mapping/dialog/debate system to further define
conscious moral agents while serving as the substrate where they themselves participate
by recognizing, debating and even betting upon (supporting) ideas, actions and moral
projects in a prediction market. Use of blockchain technologies will allow us to provide
economic incentives for contributors, simplify gamification, enable interaction with
other blockchain technologies and systems like liquid democracy and eventually allow
the moral artificial entities to have an economic impact on the outside world.
References
1. Wilson, E. O.: An Intellectual Entente. Harvard Magazine, 9 October 2009. http://harvard-
magazine.com/breaking-news/james-watson-edward-o-wilson-intellectual-entente (2009).
2. Domingos, P.: The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine
Will Remake Our World. Basic Books, New York, NY (2015).
3. O'Reilly, T.: WTF?: What's the Future and Why It's Up to Us. Harper Collins, New York,
NY (2017).
4. Shlegeris, B.: Unaligned optimization processes as a general problem for society.
http://shlegeris.com/2017/09/13/optimizers (2017).
5. Mercier, H., Sperber D.: Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34, 57–111 (2011).
6. Simler, K., Hanson, R.: The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY (2018).
7. Waser, M. R.: Discovering the Foundations of a Universal System of Ethics as a Road to
Safe Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Technical Report FS-08-04, Menlo Park, CA (2008)
8. Waser, M. R.: Designing, Implementing and Enforcing a Coherent System of Laws, Ethics
and Morals for Intelligent Machines (Including Humans). Procedia Computer Science 71,
106-111 (2015).
9. Yudkowsky, E.: Coherent Extrapolated Volition. The Singularity Institute/Machine Intelli-
gence Research Institute, San Francisco CA. https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf 2004.
10. Russell, S., Castro, D., et. al.: Are Super Intelligent Computers Really A Threat to Human-
ity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWBBe13rAPU (2015)
11. McCarthy, J., Hayes, P. J.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial
intelligence. In Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence 4, pp. 463-502. Edin-
burgh University Press, Edinburgh (1969).
12. Dennett, D.: Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI. In Hookway, C. (ed.) Minds,
Machines, and Evolution: Philosophical Studies, pp. 129-151. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1984).
13. Haugeland, J.: Mind Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1981).
14. Dawkins, R.: The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (1976).
15. Hofstadter, D.: I Am a Strange Loop. Basic Books, New York NY (2007).
16. Llinas, R. R.: I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self. Bradford/MIT Press, Westwood, MA
(2001).
17. Damasio, A. R.: Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon
Books/Random House, New York, NY (2010).
6
18. Metzinger, M: The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self. Basic
Books, New York, NY (2009).
19. Waser, M. R. Architectural Requirements & Implications of Consciousness, Self, and “Free
Will”. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 233: Biologically Inspired
Cognitive Architectures 2011, pp. 438-443. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2011)
20. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., Koch, C.: Integrated information theory: from con-
sciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17(7), 450–461. doi:
10.1038/nrn.2016.44 (2016).
21. Dehaene, S., Lau, H., and Kouider, S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it?
Science 358(6362), 486–492. doi: 10.1126/science.aan8871 (2017).
22. Ruffini, G.: An algorithmic information theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Con-
sciousness 2017(1), nix019. doi: 10.1093/nc/nix019 (2017).
23. Weber, A., Varela, F. J.: Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations
of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1, 97-125 (2002).
24. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E.: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human
Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991).
25. Waser, M. R.: Safe/Moral Autopoiesis & Consciousness. International Journal of Machine
Consciousness 5(1), 59-74 (2013).
26. Waser, M. R.: Safety and Morality Require the Recognition of Self-Improving Machines as
Moral/Justice Patients and Agents. In Gunkel, D. J., Bryson, J. J., Torrance, S. (eds.) The
Machine Question: AI, Ethics and Moral Responsibility. http://events.cs.bham.ac.uk/tu-
ring12/proceedings/14.pdf (2012).
27. Torrance, S.: Thin Phenomenality and Machine Consciousness. In: Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on Next Generation Approaches to Machine Consciousness (AISB'05), 59-66.
https://www.aisb.org.uk/publications/proceedings/aisb2005/7_MachConsc_Final.pdf
(2005).
28. Omohundro, S.: The Basic AI Drives. In: Wang, P., Goertzel, B., Franklin, S. (eds.) Artifi-
cial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference, pp. 483-492. IOS
Press, Amsterdam (2008).
29. Haidt, J., Kesebir, S.: Morality. In Fiske, S., Gilbert, D., Lindzey, G. (eds.) Handbook of
Social Psychology, 5th Edition, pp. 797-832. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2010).
30. Gigerenzer, G.: Moral satisficing: rethinking moral behavior as bounded rationality. Topics
in Cognitive Science 2, 528-554 (2010).
31. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1971).
32. Nussbaum, M. C: Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Belknap/Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2011).
33. Dennett, D.: Why you can't make a computer that feels pain. Synthese 38 (3), 415-449 (1978)
34. Balduzzi, D., Tononi, G.: Qualia: The Geometry of Integrated Information. PLoS Compu-
tational Biology 5(8): e1000462. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462 (2009).
35. Pereira, L. M., Lenaerts, T., Martinez-Vaquero, L. A., Han, T. A.: Social Manifestation of
Guilt Leads to Stable Cooperation in Multi-Agent System. In: Das, S., Durfee, E., Larson,
K., Winikoff, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and
Multiagent Systems, pp. 1422-1430 (2017).
36. Li, Y., Zhang, J., Perc, M.: Effects of compassion on the evolution of cooperation in spatial
social dilemmas. Applied Mathematics and Computation 320, 437-443 (2018).
37. Waser, M. R., Kelley, D. J.: Implementing a Seed Safe/Moral Motivational System with the
Independent Core Observer Model (ICOM). In: Procedia Computer Science 88, 125-130.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050916316714 (2016).