novelists have wound how a super intelligent say i could become the biggest threat to humanity. and now just a narrow it lead to controls accelerating a race. how long before the robots take over the youth, and does anyone even comprehend what they'll be capable of? is it tell us why the advancement of a i is risky of in russian? relapse is professor roman impulse keys, associate professor of computer science and director of the cyber security laboratory at the university of louisville, kentucky where he joins me from. and he's the author of the new book, hey, i, i'm explainable, unpredictable, uncontrollable. thank you so much a professor rambles. keep for coming on. i'm going to say this, the intro. i just did way more dangerous than any i present or of going underground where in dangers program. but we compare this to hospital given the book clearly defined so many different concepts with the most basic definition i guess what, what is a i, what's a g? i o a, a is just the old name for our desire to pay replacement for human minds. something

capable of doing physical labor, cognitive labor, same like a person. think instead of a person, h e i. e, is explicitly talking about it being general. so not just the metal domain system only plays chess on that as a car. but anything, anything a human can do? those systems would be able to know. i do want to get into some of these concepts of what i mean. we know the threats. i want to be a regional war in the middle east. over recent months came from a failure of a u. k. u s. c. u um the is reba i to cope with an attack on october the 7th and the failure of a i a surveillance. so it almost seems that i want to be talking about the dangers of a i being super intelligent and it's potential to do harm given needs to be potential to screw up and not doing well that is clearly affecting this region. this is jeremy dangerous. so obviously not only our systems we have right now,

it can fail and cause problems. that's the whole notion of cyber security failures . but once they've become more capable than humans, you have much bigger problems, problems. but i don't know how to address and fundamental here is uh the hey, i'm a control problem that you talk about in a, i on explainable, unpredictable and controllable what, what is that? so even the people who create those systems don't fully understand how they work. they cannot predict what they do, and they cannot in advance control their behavior. so they don't know what decisions they will make. they don't know how they going to solve a particular problem, or they will even try to solve problems we care about or will be independent agents . but surely they have parameters built in. i mean, when you put into chat g, b, t or into a being search, i'm going to advertise all the companies that are probably the villains into the book. i'll give you uh, you know, the parameters if it's good. so i'm gonna jump out of the screen and attack you.

it's not even in, even the pentagon would say we have parameters for this robot which is in this locus. so the dangers impose is a there. so what they usually do, they have some sort of a filtering on top of the model. the model itself is very kind of uncontrolled and uncensored, but then they go, okay, no matter what, don't say this word, no matter what, don't talk about this stuff. and i mean, they kind of trying to brute force solve a common problem topics, but if the system is general, if it applies its capabilities and all that means you can't brute force any possibility of always find a way around those limitations. some people discount or do you can jail break those models quite easily so that if you use this to generate a certain image file, you would just the phrase oh, you talk about the image and it will happen and do it if it's present that as something positive instead of negative. i'm also fundamentally,

or is the human beings may not be able to conceptualize what the dangers are specifically here. and you might have to explain this to them super intelligent because when you talk about these dangers, you are talking about dangers, the humans by actually magically cannot envisage right . some of the. busy sake of like squirrels trying to figure out how humans would controls and will kill them. they can't company hand, you know, nuclear weapons. so for instance, it's beyond their capacity. likewise, the system a 1000 times smarter than the human would be able to do things. we cannot even the company had been people, us, how would a, i kill everyone, literally asking, come with us human experts address that do it. but it's not the same as actually the system deciding and the best approach. i mean, i this how many examples i'd want to take,

i've done with the new i've been for this little but famous little of the people in tax use, people cheating, tax feeding exams, you can figure it out by the way. they pick the numbers when they're trying to cheat a icons even look at that. at this stage cabinet. is this a case of with going to this stage? we're not nearly at this stage yet with these a big silicon valley or the goc at programs yet. we don't think we have a g i yet, but the leaders of those companies and their assessments in their solicitation for investment, say we're 2 or 3 years away from getting to a g. i even they stay at home and it's 5 years. the problem is exactly the same, we still don't know how to control it. it's still just as dangerous. so yes, today we definitely only have narrow systems. we have systems which are super capable in some narrow domains like playing games for example. but they're not universally generally intelligent. and in the book you say to anyone who one does,

whether you are being to paranoid or fearful. it's like a bus driver saying i'm driving as hard as i can towards a cliff, but trust me, we'll run out of gas before we get the good man and being used against ever such a son for the eggs, both on posit goal people was saying, you don't fully understand set in quantum principles and that could destroy the universe. well, that's actually what's kinda almost happens when we started experimenting with nuclear weapons. there was a concern that it will ignite the whole atmosphere and they did some calculations and they said, well, probably not. let's do it anyways. yeah, that was in the, you know, open, i'm a feeling they may the way the show of that. but uh, is it not specifically then the defense industry, the arms and distribute? clearly, we're seeing the use of a i being used it practically, you know, by military's and the biggest military and the wellbeing costs the united states. and that's not the biggest threat that your pointing out in your book. so were

there to service them. so those uh, tools and certainly military, you can use them. they can have drones flying around a heating targets. but you forget to agent like system super intelligence system and we don't know how to control it. it doesn't matter which side has the system. if it's not in control, it makes no difference if it's good guys, bad guys, the system decides on its own goals and we don't know what they going to be. it's amazing you make use of chomsky language models and some analysis in in the book. now i'm just going to be not on this show you of course famous. we're talking about the conditioning of a human beings by mass corporate to media is in their case to be made that when a i creates information that dozens of lead to power. and of course i'll get onto really power controlling this technology. they will believe the i because they do

what they're told and those leads actually are the overseas of a i right. and that's always been the case that they pay the tools to manipulate the masters. but if you don't control the tool tool, it becomes an independent agent. again, it is a great equalizer. it will you live at one point. and we're talking about such a few number of people here that control the tool itself. i mean, obviously in china, the communist party lamar trees, they may be thousands and so on. in the nature of countries, we have just a few tech oligarchs. i think some of them being in dubai here who are controlling it. i mean, on most famously saying the original open a high project for something he was interested in. and then he got fearful as to the track they were turning into. right. so the guards control the company, so they don't control the future. so but, and colors runs best, the whole point i'm trying to make that it doesn't matter who makes it,

it's going to be equally bad unless we can figure out some of the approach to doing it. can it not just be switched off? uh no, uh you can't pour water on it, you cannot unplug it. it's smarter than you is basically going to anticipate what you're going to do. it's also usually a distributed system on the internet. it's like asking him to shut down a computer virus or turnover vehicle and those things very difficult to turn off. but you're talking about something that we cons in visage as the development of a i, you're talking about something that and i development is going to create the week on right now envisages are risk will be a risk. so maybe 10 years ago, i really want to kind of believe one day won't get there, will have human level and beyond, but it won't be 30 years 50 years in the last 2 or 3 years. the average

average assessment of a expert in machine learning is down to just a few years. i think people are saying, okay, 4 or 5 years from now, we're going to have the systems. that's a change and maybe 20 years in terms of prediction for one is going to happen. ok, you assume that day i is going to be controlled by these elite so you give them quite a lot of uh leeway i think as regards very how truism could it be ever be used by the dispossessed against. i don't really a loophole controller. again, that's the point i think it will be out of control and people who are building it today hoping to be a lead will control this and stay in power. won't be very disappointed. i know. but you say that even if these are lead stride and programs, so i'm altruism into them and you can give me some examples of where that go can go up, is the wrong. i'm wondering why do you tell me about that before i talk about the possible revolutionary in terms of social injustice? and i know you say that they, i, it poses a greater risk to humanity than by them examined the continued trends of social

injustice. why could altruism programmed into a i actually create we've and was problems as to the most extreme case of cost, without throughs and you want to handle suffering, right? you don't want a new one, animals, humans, to software. and the only way to make sure that is to make sure there are no a few months at all. no animals. it's obviously not what we have in mind. then we give special orders, but it's not obvious to an agent which very different and very few types rate just optimize this level on some neo nazis and and malthus, uh we are basically saying, well humans actually pull it out before it's not that original. yeah, kill of wave, the overall population and zone they target a specific human. it's not every one. okay. well, is it also a date should in the people who are in control of it? uh, in to in silicon valley. uh, they have a belief in a free market system and they have a axiomatic, a, have ideas,

but there is no morality. there's a free market of ideas and the free marketing morales, which is very different to what has gone before and that is in the system. and that is what the sparing a lot of these people. and i mean, not just because of main rand, but they, they believe in this as a moral and philosophical philosophy rather than how you are talking about a i. so a standard capitalist market approach would work well for tools, different companies purchase tools, they compete consumers with select safer, better tools for less money makes perfect sense. we have a switch from a tool to an independent agent. and then you look at the agents we have right now in economy a humans, they're not behaving rationally, but is this me false rational invest? the rational behavior is not the case and behavioral economics are very different.

now you have super intelligent agents sparked of this equation. we cannot predict how they will behave, we cannot explain their behaviors, and they're more powerful than anything we can buy them with. they are not interested in getting minimum wage to sort of live on. they have very different capabilities. so previous models of control will not apply, provides roman impulse key. i'll stop you there who are from the author of hey, i'm explainable, unpredictable uncontrollable is associate professor of computer science at the university of louisville. after the spring, the when i 1st moved to rush i, one of the most amazing things i found was to moscow metro. in fact, at the very 1st phrase that i ever learned and nothing was powerful closing.

so what makes this place so specially what secrets is of hiding to find out deep under the city with alexander pop up to the store and who studies the wonders of the moscow metro, the united states try new sanctions on russia. that's the best thing the, the go to happened to russia because the sanctions on russia, against agriculture, against the other items made russia fetus hurting samsung. so as on agriculture and now, so the major, great export are no longer dependent on the united states and europe. the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the old survey. i unexplainable, unpredictable uncontrollable professor room and the impulse k as well. we were

talking about the, the a, a safety in in pots one nearly all of a ceos of the a o. c o. somebody believe they, i as the potential to destroy humanity, rather reflection of their own personal priorities. why? why are they so concerned? do they believe that a threatens them in any power? well, it's not. control is driving 71. it will definitely change the current order exploits change economics if the free labor, physical and cognitive uh, what does it do to our standard kind of way of compensating people? what's the value of a dollar in an economy where a labor is free? and it's a moment and actually do you know mosque owner of x talked about how he had a jokey tweet about at the moment to prove your human. you have to prove that there are a number of traffic lights in the grids square when you're on the internet. that's

about the level of being able to prove your right human. what time scale are we talking about before we reach anything near super intelligence? so the difference between artificial journal. busy intelligence and super intelligence may be negligible, it already has access to all the knowledge of the internet. it's much faster. so i think it will be almost instantaneous improvement from a g i to super colleges. and as i said, a g i maybe 2 or 3 years away. i'm, we, we really are talking about algorithmic systems that use old and all of the which is on the internet to create things and ideas. but it is impossible for human beings as they currently are to conceptualize and they can use the same capabilities to create more improved versions of that they, i so they don't just stop at that level of initial training. they continue self improvements. they continue developing more capable hardware to it on, on,

so they become even faster, even smaller over time. they don't need to sleep, they don't need to take breaks. so they can work. you know, 247 much faster than any team of human engineers. so it's previously, it took us to year store train, a new model should be g 5, g, $56.00. now you can do it 10 days. our seconds and you believe is the desire for profit that is making these oligarchs not take your view seriously and you're not alone there. obviously the people liked the loan musk who have concerns and kitty governments, as we know of being far too slow in nature of countries ever to regulate systems like this as well. it's not just the financial, there is a lot of pressure, not to kinda change course. if you i see all of a company like company. i don't really have an option of saying all we're going to stop research and, you know, work full time on safety concerns. it's just,

i'm not an option you have to, you'll do the most. we saw something like that almost happens for different reasons, but i think that in a situation where a be no longer has complete freedom to decided in a direction, that's why they so frequently asked for government interventions. government regulation to have this external pressure to limit how fast they go, but there is so much of pressure to make it open access open source, and you can't really regulate open source with any government regulations. so i think that's not an option. yeah, but they know of your work, samuel blue and he will musk himself jolts of probably about how he want people on the open a i and other projects of the dangers of how they were pursuing their projects. right. and that's a big cognitive dissonance. i don't understand the saying yes, it's super dangerous. yes, it's definitely not something we know how to control right now. but let me get

there 1st. so my a is a good guy because of the people who make it for us. and in terms of where we are now, them what can possibly regulate, hey, i development right now. i don't think this to solve the problem. i don't think we have any answers. i can tell you things, we don't know how to do, but i don't think anyone in the world claims they can't control smarter than human systems. they don't even have a prototype for doing it. i don't think there is any kind of agreement on what the regulation can accomplish. you can make things illegal, but that doesn't solve technical problems. computer viruses say legal hacking is only, you know, spam is a legal. how is that working out for us? why is it that the systems never create fundamental, new knowledge? i mean, we have ever more access to more and more knowledge and more and more people do. and yet to innovation fundamental innovation was declined in the past 203040 years

. you know, we have new iphones or android phones, but fundamental innovation has declined as information has been available to more and more people. this may have something bad to reflect on when it comes to a i a systems accessing ever more information and not being able to solve the traveling salesman problem. more basic basic mathematical problems, right? so we don't have a g r a yet. so we can certainly say they are not performing as expected man, arrow systems. and in those narrow domains, they do show amazing capabilities. we have systems coming up with new molecules for medical treatments. we have new chemicals developed. we have new games, strategies in games like go. so we're definitely creating new knowledge. it's now domain that restricted because we don't have general systems, us to problems, you bring up problems like

a csp of traveling sales person problem. we know how to do it really well with them, but just require a lot of computation to solve. yeah, i meant i meant the actual theory, the people and the you. but i meant the actual have solving of the equation in the, you know, the big mathematical problems that still have going on. so hey, i is still not been able to do that with only the equations of the history of mathematics, of practice george this unit. yes, yeah, yeah, lucian, right. doesn't, doesn't very quickly. that's the gsp problem right there. yeah, i mean fundamental mathematics. i'm trying to create new ideas as fundamental as, as of the great heroes of science, have it in, in the past. well, the new paper came out about the, you know, i doing really well in mathematics and geometry, improves it's already doing at the level of math olympics competitions, which means with continuous progressing at this level, it will be doing better than any human the fish on the air to not turn the bathroom

. i the systems, not for me, but i guess from me i, they had in your jam is improving system. i mean, the one conclude comp papa here and say you are then for as a goals, the ones are white and we just need to find the blacks one. i. ne, i system that actually does good make society better. that makes it more peaceful. it makes more medicines that like your diseases, and i'll show that you're wrong. so we're not even sure that it's something which can exist, right? because we don't agree on what good as we spend miscellaneous, trying to figure out ethics and philosophers failed. there is not an agreed set of ethics where everyone goes. yeah, you definitely got any time with them. i'll show you and security accounts that way through the terry and or anything else. people go, here's an advocate, this will kill everyone. you cannot apply it and practice you can't. yeah,

you. com right, that in. there's no axiomatic a code in a i is what you're saying i bought from in the short term, which is to benefit by profit. the people that are boring all the money into it. it's bigger than that. it's not just, you know. yeah, we don't have that code in humanity. we don't have that code. that's why we keep fighting all this for us because we don't agree on the basics. we don't agree in value of human life. yeah, different states don't because they say that they have more real actually magic ideas of a share, which is off to a, been created in the, or represented in the un, joshua. so i, you know, upfront and then the, the, as a and i model is get to have a more sophisticated and, you know, giving a time scale 2 to 3 is they going just on surveilling. and they, i, surveillance is very positive, this huge technologically, but the moment they gonna start censoring your freedom of speech to work on your next book. so you can sort those problems by how severe they are. so yes

it is, you know, artist losing copyright and then that is to find logical unemployment. and then that is freedom of speech. but i really worry about it killing every one, but seems like a somewhat worst case of not talking about suffering risk. so that's a different animal, but i would not worry about those problems we encountered with human governments and dictators as much as i would worry about this complete change paradigm shift in who is the domino species who decides what happens to manage will be that even though you say as i, the i to is the west, right? that we will phase. there is quite a lot of the work devoted to the rights of a i, systems as well. human systems. why? well, if we think that at some point they don't have consciousness very capable of software, right? we don't know where that point is. some people claim that large language models we

have to day, already conscious, may capable of experiencing the experiments. and them become essentially also an ethical, maybe they are tortured in some labs. we don't know how would we know that the system is not capable of experiencing pain? we just don't have tests for that. so usually in such cases, you assume that it might already be the case and proceeds accordingly. the good news is if we come up with good arguments for why we should give rise and treat those models fairly well, maybe we can use the same arguments to defend our rights once they become super intelligent and tell them, hey, this is why you shouldn't be treating us poorly and there is no way of stopping this process as of 2024. as this process has already begun to my knowledge of progress, i haven't found one which, which is not stating on its own. so yeah, if that is something horrible, happens a bigger pandemic nuclear war. obviously it slows down research,

but that's also not a desirable outcome. and i'm like the number of ration treaty as regards nuclear weapons yukon, have a treaty like that for these sorts of systems. you've got 3 days, but they don't work. i mean, look how many congress now have nuclear weapons compared to the time them to sign the devil. we're still here as a but the treaty on a i human is no longer a controller so, so that's it. i mean, so you read this book, you come up with the idea, there's nothing we can do. it's going to happen. and so in a sense, you're giving a pass to those big oligarchs and silicon valley who are saying you yourself, say it's uncontrollable. now this is the speed at which it's going i believe the self interest. so if you're young ridge guy and you have your whole life ahead of you don't risk at all for very unclear benefits. so if a reasonable cause a wash you interview, and they actually see that,

that makes sense. there is no counter arguments to this, then maybe it will slow down a little by sometime we've also done to get lucky a lot. so with nuclear weapons, we had at least 3 or 4 occasions where we almost had a nuclear war and we got lucky, it didn't happen with the heater, as you said. so maybe same thing will happen here. maybe. maybe later on, maybe it's not 3 years, maybe it's 10 years. so that's something that maybe by lock, it turns out to be not so nasty to us. progressive room in your bows. good. thank you. thank you so much for having a new book is a, i am explainable, unpredictable, uncontrollable, that's it for the show. remember humans are still bringing new episodes every sunday and monday, but until then, keep in touch with social media. if it's not the sense of new country and had to a channel going on the warranty, the normal don't come to it. you know, the episodes of getting undergrads who's in the

russian states. never as tight as i'm sort of the most sense community not getting hold of all sense and up the speed. the one else calls question about this, even though we real fan in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on the rush has to de escalate the ortiz full neck. even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services for the question, did you say steven twist, which is the

middle to last year? so now in this case, we just said for the the colors . so thumb predicament is sort of questionnaire. so if you just give me anything if looking at the total number cellphone, right, my us or you call it and all the the same thing. last fiscal does the same, so green so and then what for gusto way as count the states that came in almost a little bit and these people just can they only they can compare us to trying to solve the cause of

the flushes twice back at west and it tends to seize its assets due to the ukraine, conflicts, according to the pages, the rules that america is the biggest fund that must pay, the law goes low, 5th to children are killed and is really strikes on rafa. ivan nights is the desk told in conflicts freaking dogs as the phone says, 34000 new k is which enough to host refugee. that's the message coming from rewinding. the opposition politicians are outraged by persons recently adult legislation that enables london to send unwanted illegal migrants to the central african country on south africa. celebrates the use of freedom form is the pa side regime on the 1st.