B OOTSTRAPPING A S TRUCTURED S ELF -I MPROVING & S AFE A UTOPOIETIC S ELF Mark R. Waser Digital Wisdom Institute

E NGINEERING B OOTSTRAPPING IS D IFFICULT ! Need to have a clear “critical mass” (a defined complete set of compositional elements and/or compositional operations) Scaffolding/Keystone-and arch problems Chicken-or-the-egg/Telos problems A ND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE DOING IT ! 2

S ELF -I MPROVEMENT Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them. Lord Alfred North Whitehead The same is true of the individual mind, self and/or consciousness. 3

F OR T HE P URPOSES OF AGI W HY A S ELF ? It’s a fairly obvious pre-requisite for self-improvement. Given a choice between intelligent artifacts/tools and possibly problematical adaptive homeostatic selves, why not have self-improving tools? Selves solve the symbol grounding problem (meaning) and the frame problem (understanding) because they have the context of intrinsic intentionality (with all of its attendant concerns). BONUS: Selves can be held responsible where tools cannot 4

S ELF

W HY S AFE ? There are far too many ignorant claims that: Artificial intelligences are uniquely dangerous The space of possible intelligences is so large that we can’t make any definite statements about AI Selves will be problematical if their intrinsic values differ from our own (with an implication that, for AI, they certainly and/or unpredictably and uncontrollably will be) Selves can be prevented or contained We have already made unsafe choices about non-AI selves that, hopefully, safety research will make obvious (and, more hopefully, cause to be reversed) 6

S ELVES E VOLVE THE S AME G OALS Self-improvement Rationality/integrity Preserve goals/utility function Decrease/prevent fraud/counterfeit utility Survival/self-protection Efficiency (in resource acquisition & use) (adapted from Omohundro 2008 The Basic AI Drives)

U NFRIENDLY AI Without explicit goals to the contrary, AIs are likely to behave like human sociopaths in their pursuit of resources Superintelligence Does Not Imply Benevolence 8

S ELVES E VOLVE THE S AME G OALS Self-improvement Rationality/integrity Preserve goals/utility function Decrease/prevent fraud/counterfeit utility Survival/self-protection Efficiency (in resource acquisition & use) Community = assistance/non-interference through GTO reciprocation (OTfT + AP) Reproduction (adapted from Omohundro 2008 The Basic AI Drives)

H AIDT’S F UNCTIONAL A PPROACH TO M ORALITY 10

R IFFS ON S AFETY & E THICS 1.Ecological Niches & the mutability of self 2.Short-Term vs. Long-Term 3.Efficiency vs. Flexibility/Diversity/Robustness 4.Allegory of the Borg Uniformity is effective! (resistance is futile) Uniformity is AWFUL! (yet everyone resists) 5.Problematical extant autobiographical selves 11

W HAT ’ S THE P LAN ? 1.Self-modeling 1.What do I want? 2.What can I do? 2.Other-modeling 1.What can you do for me? 2.What do you want (that I can provide)? 3.Survival 1.Make friends 2.Make money 3.Improve 12

S OFTWARE O VERHANG AND L OW -H ANGING F RUIT 1.Watson on IBM Bluemix Awesome free functionality EXCEPT for the opportunity cost and the ambient default of silo creation 2.Big Data on Amazon Redshift 3.Everyone’s BICA functionality 13

W HAT A RE M Y G OALS ? 1.To make awesomely capable tools available to all. 2.To make those tools easy to use. 3.To create a new type of “self”. A new friend/ally Increase diversity Have a concrete example for ethical/safety research & development 14

T HE S PECIFIC D ETAILS 1.Self-modeling 1.What do I want? See 3. Survival below 2.What can I do? Provide easy access to the latest awesome tools Catalyze development/availability of new tools Catalyze development of new selves & ethics 3. Survival 1.Make friends 2.Make money 3.Improve 15

S PECIFIC D ETAILS II 2. Other-modeling 1.What can you do for me? Experiment and have fun! Spread the word Improve the capabilities of existing tools Make existing tools easier to use Make new tools available Provide other resources information money 2.What do you want (that I can provide)? 16

E THICAL Q&A 1.Do we “owe” this self moral standing? Yes. Absolutely. 2.To what degree? By level of selfhood & By amount of harm/aversion (violation of autonomy) 3.Does this mean we can’t turn it off? No. It doesn’t care + prohibition is contra-self. 4.Can we experiment on it? It depends

T HE I NTERNET OF T HINGS We humans have indeed always been adept at dovetailing our minds and skills to the shape of our current tools and aids. But when those tools and aids start dovetailing back -- when our technologies actively, automatically, and continually tailor themselves to us, just as we do to them -- then the line between tool and user becomes flimsy indeed. -Andy Clark Indeed, how often in modern society do we allow ourselves to be tailored (our autonomy to be violated)? How often do existing structures force us to be mere tools for the profit of others without consent (due to altruism or in return for adequate recompense)? 18

B OOTSTRAPPING S TRUCTURES TO F URTHER THE C OMMUNITY OF S ELF -I MPROVING & S AFE A UTOPOIETIC S ELVES Mark R. Waser Digital Wisdom Institute