but i think right now, rushing remains, try to take the high road, got the low road res, always fascinating to speak to and congratulations. busy not address to the the console as well and thanks for coming. busy to speak with us today on that. laurie johnson, former c i analyst, i'm ceo, all of the burg associates roofing, laurie many sites, a thanks unit, i apologize for not wearing a suit and tie. you always look fine to me. all right, thank you very much. all right, bye bye. now, are we sleeping on the dangers of artificial intelligence, or will we adopt uncontrolled, the rapid rise of the machines that's done for discussion next in going underground, [000:00:00;00]

the actual attempt to welcome back to going underground pool costs to go around the world from the u. a, what do you think is most likely to destroy humanity in each power? yes, but through nato expansion ism nuclear war pen damaged climate change or something else. for years futurist scientists will make as a novelist, have warned how a super intelligent say i could become the biggest threat to humanity. and now just a narrow elite controls accelerating a race. how long before that robots take over the youth? and does anyone even comprehend what they'll be capable of? you have to tell us why the advancement of a i is risky of and russian roulette is professor roman young palsky is associate professor of computer science and director of the cyber security laundry at the university of louisville, kentucky where he joins me from. and he's the older, 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. we're more dangerous than any i presenter of going underground where dangerous program. but we've had this talk to all, 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. this is just the old name for our desire to be replacement for human minds. something capable of doing physical labor, cognitive labor, same like a person. think instead of a person, h e, i is explicitly talking about it being general. so not just a metal domain system, only place chess on the drives, 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 run it the original war in the middle east over recent months. gabriel, a failure of a u. k. u. s. c. u um the is reva, i to cope with an attack on october the 7th, and the failure of

a i a surveillance. so it almost seems odd to me to hear about the dangers of a i being super intelligent and it's potential to do um, given needs to be potential to screw up and not do well that is clearly affecting this region. there may venture. so obviously not only i systems to have right now, it can fail and costs problems. that's the whole notion of cyber security failures . but once they've become more capable of in a few months, you have much bigger problems problems. but i know how to address and fundamental here is a, b, a on a control problem that you talk about in a, i on explainable, unpredictable, uncontrollable 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 even 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 it into chat, g, b, t, or into a being such as going to advertise all the companies that are probably the villains into the book. i keep looking at, 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 ro bought, which is in this locus. so the dangers, it poses 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 and scape abilities and all that means you can't brute force any possibility of always find a way around those limitations. and people discount or do you can drill, break those models quite easily. but if you use this to generate a certain image for you or just the phrase, all you talk about the image and it will happily do it if it's present that as something positive instead of negative. i'm also fundamental here is that human beings may not be able to conceptualize what the dangers are specifically here. and you might have to explain this to them super intelligence. because when you talk about these dangers, you are talking about dangers, the humans by actually magically cannot envisage right? some of the sake of, like squirrels trying to figure out how humans, what 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, how would you assume an expert suggest 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 reading exams, you can figure it out by the way. they pick the numbers when they're trying to cheat. hey, i can't even look at that at this stage. kind of it is this a case of with going to this stage? we're not nearly at this stage yet with these a big silicon valley. all the got the 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 say it wrong 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 here. 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 and trust me, we'll run out of gas before we get the good not of being used against ever. such a sun for the higgs both on posit cool. people were saying you don't fully understand certain quantum principles and that could destroy the universe. well, that's actually what's kinda almost happens then we started experimenting with nuclear weapons. there was a concern that they believed tonight that. busy that must be year and they do some calculation, some of this that will probably not let's do it anyways. yeah. that was in the,

you know, open, i'm a feeling they made the way to show of that. but uh, is it not specifically then the defense industry, the alms industry view, clearly we're seeing the use of a i being used in practically, you know, by military's and the biggest military and the wellbeing course, the united states. and that's not the biggest threat that your pointing out in your book. so we're at our systems, those tools and certainly military. you can use them. they can have drones flying around to a heating targets. but you forget to agent like systems to put 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 in some analysis and in the book

now i'm just being on on this show you of course famous we're talking about the conditioning of human beings by mass corporate to media is isn't there case to be made that when a, i creates information that dozens of it leads power, and of course we all get onto really power controlling this technology. they will believe the i because they do what they're told. and those leads actually i'd be oversee, is all they are 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 as a tool and becomes an independent agent again, it is a great equalizer. it will heal everyone equally 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 have been in dubai here who are controlling it. i mean, most famous be 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 one's 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? oh no. you can't pour water on it. you cannot unplug it, it's smarter than you. it's 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 the computer virus or turnover bitcoin. those things very difficult to turn off for you

to human, something that we content 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 terrible to 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, falls 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 relates you give them quite a lot of uh leeway, i think as regards very how truism could it ever be used by the dispossessed. again, i don't really at least spoken to all that. again, that's the point i think it will be out of control and people who are building it

today hoping to be leads little control of it and stay in power. won't be very disappointed. i know. but you say that even if these are leads, try to program, so i'm altruism into them and you can give me some examples of where that go. it can go up, is the wrong. why the, why the, tell me about that before i talk about the possible revolutionary in terms of social injustice. and i know you say today i, it poses a greater risk to humanity than by them examined the continued threads of such an injustice. why could altruism programmed into way i actually create, we've been, was problems as the most extreme case, of course, without throughs and you want to handle suffering, right? you don't want a new one, animals. human is the software. and the only way to make sure that is to make sure that i don't know if humans 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 for the go 100 and some new nazis and, and malthus, uh,

we are basically saying what humans actually build up before it's not that original . yeah, kill off wave, the overall population. and so, and they target a specific human. it's not every one. okay. well, is it also a day it should then the people who are in control of it uh, in the, to in silicon valley, uh, they have a belief in a free market system. and they have a axiomatic. they have ideas that 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 produce tools,

they compete consumers which select save from better tools for less money makes perfect sense. we have a switch from a tool to an independent agent. then your local agents may have right now in the economy a few months. 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 part 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 survive on. they have very different capabilities. so previous models of control will not apply prevents room and the impulse key, i'll stop you there. or from the author of a, i'll explain to them predictable, uncontrollable associate professor of computer science at the university of louisville. after the spring,

the the, the, [000:00:00;00] the, the united states try new, i'm out of the sanctions on russia. that's the best thing the, the go to happened, the russian because the sanctions on russia,

against agriculture, against the other items to made russia fetus produce that song. so as on agriculture and now and 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. well, we were talking about the, the a, a safety in, in part one, nearly all of, of ceo's of the a, l. 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 it a threatens them and then lead power? well if it's not,

control is driving $71.00. it will definitely change the current order of 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 general intelligence and super intelligence may be negligible. it's 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 23 years away. and we, we really are talking about algorithmic systems that use old and all of you the, which is on the internet to create things and ideas that 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. the continuous self improvement, 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 previously it took us to year store train the new model attributes, the 5 g,

56. now you can do it 10 days. our seconds and you believe is the desire for profit that is making these um, oligarchs not take your view seriously and you're not alone there. obviously the people liked the loan mosque who have concerns, including governments. as we know of being far too slow in nature of countries and what to regulate systems like this as well, it's not just the sign. so there is a lot of pressure not to kind of 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 deal with the most we so something like that almost happens for different reasons. but i think that in this situation where of the no longer has complete freedom to decide in a direction, that's why they so frequently asked for government intervention and government

regulation to have this external pressure to limit how fast they go. but there is so much sure 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 linen, you know, musk himself jolts and probably about how he want people on the open a i and other projects of the dangers of how they were pursuing that project. 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 it 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, then we can possibly regulate, hey, i development right now. i don't think it's to solve the problem. i don't think it was, 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 a legal spam is a legal how is that working out for us? why is it that the system is 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. fundamentally, innovation was declined in the past 203040 years. you know, we have new iphones or android phones, but fundamental innovation is declined as information has been available to more and more people. and 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, the basic mathematical problems are, right? so we don't have a g r a yet. so we can't really say, but 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 ts, via traveling sales person problem. we know how to do really well with them. we just require a lot of computation for solve. um yeah, i meant i meant the actual theory, the people in 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 being able to do that with only the equations of the history of

mathematics, of practice george, this unit gets yeah. language and the item does that 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 the great heroes of science have 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 patient in the air to not turn the bathroom. i systems not for me, but i guess from me i, they had in your geometry probing system. i mean, the one concord, 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 cure 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 counselors in the area and on anything else. people go, here's an education, this will kill everyone. you cannot apply it and practice yukon. yeah. you com, write that in. there's no axiomatic the 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. is this 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 of this for us because we don't agree on basic so we don't agree on

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 creative in the, or represented in the un, joshua. so i, you know, upfront and then that has a, and i model is get to have a more sophisticated and you know, giving a time scale of 2 to 3 is they going just on surveilling. and they, i, surveillance is clearly 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, that is, you know, artists losing copyrights and then that is to find logical unemployment. and then that is freedom of speech, but i really worry about it killing every one that 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 shifting, who is the dominant specie, who decides what happens to them, that it will be that even though you say as i b, i 20 is the worst threat that we will face. there is quite a lot of that will devoted to the rights of a isis tense 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 this. some people claim that large language models we have today, already congress made capable of experiencing the experiments. and them become essentially also an ethical, maybe they have 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 proceed according to the good news is if we come up with good arguments for why we should give rise and read 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 the data stating on its own. so yeah, if that is something horrible, happens the 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 tracy on a i human is no longer a controller so. so that's it. i mean, so you read this approach, they 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 was saying you yourself say it's uncontrollable. now this is the speed at which it's going, i believe in a self interest. so if you are young ridge guy and you have your whole life ahead of, you don't risk at all for very unclear benefits. so if they read the book and say what 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 sometimes we also tend 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. we're still here, as you said. so maybe the 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 like,

it turns out to be not so nasty to us for the rest of room in your boesky. thank you. thank you so much for having a new book is a lot, i'll explain it while i'm predictable, 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 sense of new country and had to channel going other guaranteed po number to come to it, you know the episodes of getting underground season the

the the, the crowds of protesters fill the streets of tel aviv valdez released the prime minister. netanyahu strike a deal with from us to release all remaining. aust lucas' from calvin with the government to reside. this is the worst government that was inception. also ahead in the program, russia strikes back out of western attempts, the series itself. it's due to the ukraine complex with face and petersburg ports of america's biggest fund love to pay in post school incurs russia