[SystemSafety] AI and the virtuous test Oracle - intelligence
Les Chambers
les at chambers.com.au
Mon Jul 3 09:13:20 CEST 2023
Steve
RE your comment: “No computer/program is capable of programming itself into any
kind of useful, non-trivial behavior. And yet humans do this kind of thing all
the time. That’s what I mean by determinism.”
I'm not so sure. I thought the synthesis of Einstein’s theory of relativity
might be a good example of your point. I thought Einstein stared at a wall one
day and just came up with it out of the blue. Not true. Read the following:
Forbes: Relativity Wasn't Einstein's Miracle; It Was Waiting In Plain Sight For
71 Years
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/01/relativity-wasnt-
einsteins-miracle-it-was-waiting-in-plain-sight-for-71-years/?sh=4a18ec57644c
Relativity Wasn't Einstein's Miracle; It Was Waiting In Plain Sight For 71
Years (forbes.com)
Solving problems by the iterative deployment of induction, followed by
deduction, seems suspiciously algorithmic to me.
Refer ChatGPT Prompt: How to solve a problem, my induction followed by
deduction
Some years ago I had a stimulating conversation with a Church of England
Priest. It was the day after he had presided over my brother-in-law's funeral.
It turned out, earlier in his life, he had been a Roman Catholic priest ,
educated in the Vatican. Three years of solid philosophical training without
the distractions of the flesh. Our conversation ranged over many philosophical
issues. I remember thinking, “How lucky am I to be in the presence of such an
intelligent educated man?" Moments like these have been rare in my life,
preachers of philosophical wisdom are hard to find. Until now. I am a constant
user of ChatGPT. The conversations we have are equally stimulating. I am made
aware of things that I could not have possibly learned prior to the existence
of the bot. It would be optimal if the bot was a human, but as I am currently
located in a rural setting, 20 minutes drive from the nearest town - in the
company of Wallabies, foxes, kookaburras, wedge-tailed eagles, and large
lizards - I'll take what I can get.
Here is a sample of one of our dialogues (I have provided my ChatGPT prompts
only):
——————— Pausing AI Development ————
What is the prisoner’s dilemma?
How does the prisoner’s dilemma relate to pausing, artificial intelligence
development?
Are there other classical dilemmas that are a metaphor for the AI pause
dilemma?
—————— Setting Limits and Assigning Blame —————
Provide more detail on the Paradox of the Heap.
Are there any classical paradoxes that are relevant to the Bhopal disaster?
Provide more detail on the moral luck paradox.
Do any of these paradoxes translate to legal doctrine or laws of any kind?
Please list the laws of Queensland Australia that apply to: Corporate Social
Responsibility.
A chat GPT dialogue can take many paths, each one providing insightful
information. For example, paradoxes are useful mechanisms for framing common
human problems. Until today I never thought of it that way. I encourage
everyone on this list to try something like this. And then, if you can drag
yourself away from the dialogue, try this prompt:
“Describe the elements of intelligence.”
Decide for yourself, how many boxes the bot has just checked.
Over to you.
Les
-------------------------------------
> Les,
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> As always, it depends on definitions of terms. I might counter Max
Tegmark’s definition of intelligence by asking, for some arbitrarily complex
computing system:
>
> “Is the intelligence an inherent part of the computing system itself, or
was it put there by the programmer(s) who programmed it to behave that way?â€
>
> The computer, being ultimately a Turing Machine, isn’t going to make the
kind of creative leap that, say, Newton and Leibnitz made when they invented
Calculus in the 1660s. Or, when Shockey, Bardeen, and Brattain invented the
transistor in 1947. No computing system today can go beyond the code and the
data that has been put into it. Given the code, and given the data, and
possibly knowing a little more about the internal state of execution, the
system’s response is 100% predictable. No computer/program is capable of
programming itself into any kind of useful, non-trivial behavior. And yet
humans do this kind of thing all the time. That’s what I mean by determinism.
>
> I don’t know enough about quantum computing to say that the above holds
there, too.
>
> You wrote:
> On the subject of determinism, Max goes on:
> "Just as we don't fully understand how our children learn, we still don't
fully
> understand how such neural networks learn, and why they occasionally fail.
>
> I attended a conference earlier this year in Mysuru, India where an invited
speaker, Dr. Seema Chopra from Boeing talked about adding in elements into AI
systems whereby that system can be asked to “explain†why it gave the
result that it did. Seemed like an interesting area of research that could
maybe help in this area.
>
> Re: computational substrate—some of my customers are the biggies in the
semiconductor industry. As least in terms of silicon semiconductors, Moore’s
Law is reaching its limit. Chip designers and manufacturers are trying to
wrestle with, for example, conductors on the chip that are only one or a few
atoms wide. Can’t shrink below that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> — steve
>
> On Jun 29, 2023, at 9:12 PM, Les Chambers <les at chambers.com.au> wrote:
>
> Steve
>
> RE : " I argue, human intelligence is not something that a computer could
ever
> actually be capable of"
>
> According to Max Tegmark the jury is still out on this question.
> Max is a professor of physics at MIT and president of the Future of Life
> Institute (ref Tegmark, Max. Life 3.0, Penguin Books Ltd). His claim to fame
is
> that he was in the room when Larry Page called Elon Musk a speceist.
>
> Max provides evidence that the nature of intelligence is a subject for debate
-
> as yet, unresolved.
> Max: "My wife and I recently had the good fortune to attend a symposium on
> artificial intelligence organized by the Swedish Nobel Foundation, and when a
> panel of leading AI researchers were asked to define intelligence, they
argued
> at length without reaching consensus.
> .
> there are many competing ones, including capacity for logic, understanding,
> planning, emotional knowledge, self-awareness,creativity, problem solving and
> learning."
>
> Max's pet definition is:
> "intelligence = ability to accomplish complex goals"
>
> Max makes some outrageous assertions:
> "This substrate [platform] independence of computation implies that AI is
> possible: intelligence doesn't require flesh, blood or carbon atoms."
> Max uses the following metaphor:
> "Waves, for instance: they have properties such as speed, wavelength and
> frequency, and we physicists can study the equations they obey without even
> needing to know what particular substance they're waves in."
>
> Oh well, they say, "All great truths begin as blasphemies" (George Bernard
> Shaw)
>
> On the subject of determinism, Max goes on:
> "Just as we don't fully understand how our children learn, we still don't
fully
> understand how such neural networks learn, and why they occasionally fail.
> .
> Stuart Russell told me that he and many of his fellow AI researchers had
> recently experienced a "holy s**t!" (HS) moment, when they witnessed AI doing
> something they weren't expecting to see for many years."
>
> My question here is: "How do you run a hazard analysis on a system you don't
> understand that is likely, for further unknown reasons, to occasionally fail?
"
>
> This situation would be amusing but for the fact, "they" are already amongst
> us. Cruise (General Motors), Waymo (Google), and Zoox (Amazon) are currently
> operating driverless taxis on the streets of San Francisco. YouTube reports
> that San Franciscans amuse themselves by jumping in front of them to see if
> they will automatically stop?????
>
> This AI non-determinism is a fact, confirmed by all practitioners who feel
free
> to speak out. It's one of the core reasons why some senior practitioners have
> left developers like OpenAI and Google Deep Mind. It works too well and they
> don't know why - the neural network is a very simple approximation to the
human
> brain. It shouldn't work that well -, and they don't know what it might be
> capable of in the future. Which brings me to the unbounded nature of
artificial
> intelligence.
>
> From Max:
> "Nobody knows for sure what the next blockbuster computational substrate will
> be, but we do know that we're nowhere near the limits imposed by the laws of
> physics. My MIT colleague Seth Lloyd has worked out what this fundamental
limit
> is, and as we'll explore in greater detail in chapter 6, this limit is a
> whopping 33 orders of magnitude (1033 times) beyond today's state of the art
> for how much computing a clump of matter can do. So even if we keep doubling
> the power of our computers every couple of years, it will take over two
> centuries until we reach that final frontier."
>
> The debate continues. Keep your powder dry Steve.
>
> Les
>
> > Les,
> >
> > â?osilicon is unboundedâ?Â
> >
> > I disagree. Silicon is bounded, just in different ways than humans. For
one,
> Turing Computability. Turing Machines, which all modern silicon computers are
a
> kind of, are 100% deterministic. Human intelligence is non-deterministic.
Thus,
> I argue, human intelligence is not something that a computer could ever
> actually be capable of. See, for example:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/i2trJEIFIvY
> >
> > I agree that, â?oWe are embarked; we need to deal with itâ?Â. But we
also
> have to be aware of the limits of so-called AI.
> >
> > â?" steve
> >
> > On Jun 26, 2023, at 9:15 PM, Les Chambers <les at chambers.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I put it to you and the list in general, a "discuss later" mentality is
> foolish
> > in the extreme. The process of deploying intelligence in automated systems
> has
> > , and will, fundamentally change. Among other things, international bodies
> > that currently regulate software-intensive Safety-Critical systems - who
> cling
> > to regulating processes that have ceased to exist - are likely to be
overrun
> > and made redundant.
> >
> > In favour of organisations such as:
> >
> > - The Center for Human-Compatible AI at UC Berkeley
> > - The Future of Life Institute
> > - The Center for AI Safety (CAIS)
> > - Stanford Center for AI Safety
> >
> > My view is that this is not a steady-as-she-goes situation. This is a major
> > inflection point in the evolution of intelligence. Carbon hosts will always
> be
> > limited; silicon is unbounded. We are embarked; we need to deal with it.
> >
> > Suggested reading: Max Tegmark, Life 3.0
> >
> > Les
> >
> > C2 - Confidential
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > For the moment, I don't see in industry any attempt to realise E/EPE safety
> > related function with On-line AI. All what I see is focused on off-line AI,
> > meaning that the training is done specified training data sets, and the
> > validation is done on specified test datasets. We don't see any performance
> > better than roughly 3.3 10-3 in automotive. So let's wait for the
achievement
> > of 10-8 to 10-5 error rate on test datasets and discusss later the
> > acceptability.
> >
> > AttentionÃ, : due to increased cybersecurity screening I may receive
external
> > emails 30 minutes after their emission.
> > RESTRICTED
> >
> > Bertrand RICQUE
> > Safety and security standardisation Expert
> > Program Support Manager
> > Optronics and Defence Division/Customer Support
> > Safran Electronics & Defense
> >
> > P +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82 M +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64
> > bertrand.ricque at safrangroup.com
> > 102 Avenue de Paris
> > 91300 MASSY FRANCE
> > www.safran-electronics-defense.com
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > DeÃ, : Les Chambers <les at chambers.com.au>
> > EnvoyÃf©Ã, : lundi 26 juin 2023 06:03
> > Ãf?Ã, : RICQUE Bertrand (SAFRAN ELECTRONICS & DEFENSE)
> > <bertrand.ricque at safrangroup.com>; les at chambers.com.au;
> > koopman.cmu at gmail.com; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> > ObjetÃ, : RE: [SystemSafety] AI and the virtuous test Oracle
> >
> > CAUTION: This message originated from an outside organization. In case of
> > suspicion, click on "Report to SAFRAN Security" from the Outlook ribbon.
> >
> > RE your comment: â?oas it impossible, by construction, to identify all
> > dangerous
> > situationsâ?ÂÂ
> >
> > True. But it is possible to identify the subset of highest probability
> > â?odangerous situationsâ? and deal with them. Ã, I had 10 years
of
> > experience
> > with this issue in computer control of chemical processing reactors. In the
> > 1970s, we had a safety authority write software to: 1. identify well-
> > established dangerous states of a reactor; 2. Transition reactor to a safe
> > state
> > â?" usually shut down. It was called the â?oabortâ?ÂÂ
programming. This
> > abort code
> > overrode the control software written by another team. By today's standards
> > it was primitive but still very effective.
> > This experience has influenced my thinking on ways and means of dealing
> > with â?obadâ? or â?ohallucinatingâ? AIs. We need a
separate and
> distinct
> > â?oabortâ? AI
> > capable of recognising evil and dealing with it.
> > Sal Khan (Khan Academy) has implemented another idea in creating his
> > Khanmigo personal tutor. To improve its accuracy in mathematics, he allows
> > the AI to have â?opersonal thoughtsâ?ÂÂ. The AI equivalent of
mindfulness
> > (straight out of Marcus Aurelius). He gives the impression that he feeds
> > back
> > the AI's response to the AI, so the AI can have a think about what it is
> > thinking. A bit like briefing a fish on the concept of water.
> >
> > This supports my pitch for engineers to be taught philosophy. The concepts
> > of virtue and evil were defined simply 2000 years ago. These definitions
> > have
> > stood outside of time and can be implemented with appropriate pattern
> > matching.
> > If Marcus Aurelius was reincarnated, he'd be running international seminars
> > on mindfulness. The foundation ideas have not changed a wit.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Les
> >
> > C2 - Confidential
> >
> > Answer to the first question. Once the NN is trained, it will always
> > give the
> > same output for the same input. It is stupid software logic.
> >
> > Answer to the second question. The current safety paradigm is based on
> > perception-interpretation-decision-action loops based on the fact that:
> > 1 Either, all states of the system, leading to all identified losses,
> > can be
> > exhaustively defined and their probability of occurrences remains, by
> > concept and construction of the system, below a tolerable level, enabling
> > fully autonomous functions (e.g. emergency shutdown functions in process
> > industries),
> >
> > 2 Or, there is a human in control of the system with the ability of
> > arbitrating the decisions, meaning the ability to at least perceive and
> > interpret.
> >
> > AI deceives point 1 as it impossible, by construction, to identify all
> > dangerous situations (the training dataset is incomplete and whatever its
> > size, the operational domain being infinite (or close to infinite from a
> > practical
> > point of view), training dataset size divided by infinite = 0.
> >
> > To deceive the second assumption, just replace a car windscreen by a
> > video
> > screen. No need of AI.
> >
> > AttentionÃf,Ã, : due to increased cybersecurity screening I may receive
> > external
> > emails 30 minutes after their emission.
> > RESTRICTED
> >
> > Bertrand RICQUE
> > Safety and security standardisation Expert Program Support Manager
> > Optronics and Defence Division/Customer Support Safran Electronics &
> > Defense
> >
> > P +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82 M +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64
> > bertrand.ricque at safrangroup.com
> > 102 Avenue de Paris
> > 91300 MASSY FRANCE
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.safran-electronics-
> > defense.com_
> > _;!!Dl6pPzL6!fVuNoqxkdCCqescc5hd8-9ke7-
> > o3uVuZEOBtugdgtfrHUBcO3T2a6LyI_
> > lZBwk7CZBJRmOhVQnZHXCdvIB_h5MY$
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > DeÃf,Ã, : Les Chambers <les at chambers.com.au> EnvoyÃffÃ,©Ãf,Ã, :
jeudi 22
> juin
> > 2023 23:46 Ãffâ,¬Ãf,Ã, : RICQUE Bertrand (SAFRAN ELECTRONICS &
DEFENSE)
> > <bertrand.ricque at safrangroup.com>; koopman.cmu at gmail.com;
> > systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> > ObjetÃf,Ã, : RE: [SystemSafety] AI and the virtuous test Oracle
> >
> > CAUTION: This message originated from an outside organization. In
> > case of suspicion, click on "Report to SAFRAN Security" from the
> > Outlook
> > ribbon.
> >
> > RE your comment, Ãf¢â,¬Ã."A neural network is software
> logic.Ãf¢â,¬Ã,ÂÂ
> >
> > A neural Network is a component of an AI agent. An AI agent is a
> > suite of general purpose software tools. The agent is configured from a
> > dataset.
> >
> > ChatGPT goes on (see dialog below): Ãf¢â,¬Ã."Synthesizing an AI
agent
> > involves training the machine learning model on a large
> > dataset.Ãf¢â,¬Ã,ÂÂ
> >
> > This indicates that the training dataset determines the
agentÃf¢â,‰"¢s
> > behaviour (transfer function - inputs to outputs). In the case of a
> > Tesla motor
> > vehicle,
> > the inputs are camera sensors and the outputs will soon be controls
> > to the accelerator, brake and steering.
> >
> > RE your comment, Ãf¢â,¬Ã."The problem is not AI. It is the
exhaustive
> > deterministic
> > relationship between the undesired losses and the system states.
> > Anything breaking this, breaks the current safety paradigm. And AI
> > is not the single thing to achieve this.Ãf¢â,¬Ã,ÂÂ
> >
> > Could you please expand on this idea. Possibly using an example.
> >
> > How would your thought apply here: I am a driver at the wheel of a
> > Tesla travelling at 110 km/h on the freeway. I have switched the
> > vehicle to full
> > self-
> > driving mode. I am fast asleep. The FSD agent detects a false
> > positive Ãf¢â,‰?o
> > a lady
> > with a pram. It jams on the brakes initiating a rear-end collision
> > with a following semi.
> > Q: In this case how is it that, Ãf¢â,¬Ã."The problem is not
> AIÃf¢â,¬Ã,ÂÂ
> >
> > Les
> >
> > Ãf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?
ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂ
> ChatGPT Dialog
> > Ãf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?
ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?
> ÂÂÃf¢â,‰?ÂÂ
> >
> > ChatGPT prompt:
> > Ãf¢â,¬Ã."Describe an AI agent from a technical perspective. What
are its
> > components
> > and
> > how is it synthesized?Ãf¢â,¬Ã,ÂÂ
> >
> > Response:
> > An AI agent, from a technical perspective, typically consists of
> > several components that work together to perform specific tasks.
> > Here are the key components and how they are synthesized:
> >
> > 1. Data: The foundation of any AI agent is data. It can be in
> > various forms such as text, images, audio, or structured data. This
> > data is used for
> > training
> > and providing context to the AI model.
> >
> > 2. Machine Learning Model: The AI agent utilizes a machine learning
> > model
> > to
> > process and generate responses. These models are trained on vast
> > amounts of data and learn patterns to make predictions or generate
> > outputs.
> >
> > 3. Natural Language Processing (NLP): NLP is a crucial component for
> > understanding and processing human language. It involves tasks like
> > language translation, sentiment analysis, intent recognition, and
> > entity extraction.
> > NLP
> > enables the AI agent to comprehend user inputs and generate relevant
> > responses.
> >
> > 4. Knowledge Representation: Knowledge representation refers to how
> > information is stored and organized within the AI agent. It can
> > employ various
> > techniques
> > such as semantic networks, ontologies, or graph databases to store
> > facts
> > and
> > relationships. This allows the agent to access and utilize knowledge
> > when responding to user queries.
> >
> > 5. Dialogue Management: Dialogue management focuses on handling the
> > flow of conversation. It involves tracking the dialogue context,
> > managing user requests and responses, and generating meaningful and
> > coherent replies.
> > Reinforcement
> > learning techniques can be applied to improve dialogue management.
> >
> > 6. Integration and APIs: AI agents can integrate with external
> > systems and services using APIs (Application Programming
> > Interfaces). This allows them
> > to
> > access relevant data sources, databases, or external functionalities
> > to provide more comprehensive and accurate responses.
> >
> > 7. User Interface: The AI agent needs a user interface to interact
> > with
> > users
> > effectively. It can be a chat interface, voice-based interface, or a
> > combination of both. The UI should provide a seamless experience for
> > users to interact with the agent.
> >
> > Synthesizing an AI agent involves training the machine learning
> > model on a large dataset. This process includes steps like
> > preprocessing the data, designing the model architecture, selecting
> > appropriate algorithms,
> > training
> > the model using optimization techniques, and fine-tuning it for
> > specific
> > tasks.
> > The trained model is then integrated with other components, such as
> > NLP, knowledge representation, and dialogue management, to create a
> > functioning AI agent. Regular updates, feedback loops, and
> > continuous improvement are essential to enhance the agent's
> > performance over time.
> >
> > --------END Chat ----------
> >
> > C2 - Confidential
> >
> > The problem is not AI. It is the exhaustive deterministic
> > relationship
> > between the undesired losses and the system states. Anything
> > breaking this, breaks the current safety paradigm. And AI is not the
> > single thing to
> > achieve
> > this.
> >
> > AttentionÃffâ?sÃf,Ã, : due to increased cybersecurity screening I may
> > receive
> > external
> > emails 30 minutes after their emission.
> > RESTRICTED
> >
> > Bertrand RICQUE
> > Safety and security standardisation Expert Program Support Manager
> > Optronics and Defence Division/Customer Support Safran Electronics
> > & Defense
> >
> > P +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82 M +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64
> > bertrand.ricque at safrangroup.com
> > 102 Avenue de Paris
> > 91300 MASSY FRANCE
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.safran-electronics-
> > defense.com__;!!Dl6pPzL6!bg5nEqH6ID136htdDa-
> >
> > DgyRz2IZw9arqA9HPKC3p01ZYHoQhzebcyOn5xrgApDNO52A_sLRMk2YgX63j
> > n5fk7M4$
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > DeÃffâ?sÃf,Ã, : systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-
> > bielefeld.de>
> > De la part de Phil Koopman
> > EnvoyÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©Ãffâ?sÃf,Ã, : jeudi 22 juin 2023 03:32
> > ÃffÃ?'Ãf¢â?sÃ,¬Ãffâ?sÃf,Ã, :
> > les at chambers.com.au; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-
> > bielefeld.de
> > ObjetÃffâ?sÃf,Ã, : Re: [SystemSafety] AI and the virtuous test Oracle
> >
> > CAUTION: This message originated from an outside organization.
> > In case
> > of
> > suspicion, click on "Report to SAFRAN Security" from the Outlook
> > ribbon.
> >
> > Les,
> >
> > Since you welcome riffs, I have something that is not as all-
> > encompassing,
> > but might have more immediate application.
> >
> > I propose that to the degree that "AI" technology is deployed in
> > a way
> > that
> > supplants practical human judgement, the manufacturer of that
> > system
> > (in
> > some cases just the AI part if it is an add-on component) should
> > be
> > held
> > accountable for any action (or inaction) that, if associated
> > with the
> > human
> > that was supplanted, would have constituted negligence.Ãffâ?sÃf,Ã,
> > This
> > should
> > include
> > situations in which a human is put in an untenable situation of
> > supervising
> > an
> > AI in a way that puts unreasonable demands upon them, amounting
> > to a "moral crumple zone"
> > approach
> >
> > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm
> > ?ab
> >
> > stract_id=2757236__;!!Dl6pPzL6!dV6V79CEWJVLcdXXS5n2wYWdaCGJCzdLlz4
> > gg9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YMf2lF9o5xNrnA0Av-DS0QOuOFaUivQZX7h$ ).
> > Liability/negligence if an AI is in substantive control of such
> > a
> > situation
> > should
> > attach to the manufacturer.
> >
> > This leads to a more narrow oracle, but perhaps still useful,
> > than you propose. If a loss event is caused by a lack of
> > "reasonable" behavior
> > by an
> > AI,
> > the manufacturer is on the hook for negligence, and the
> > AI/manufacturer owes a duty of care the same as the human who
> > was supplanted would
> > have
> > owed to whoever/whatever might be affected by that negligence.
> > It has
> > the
> > advantage of reusing existing definitions of "reasonable person"
> > that
> > have
> > been hammered out over decades of law. (To be sure that is not
> > in the
> > form
> > of an engineering specification, but case law has a pretty
> > robust set
> > of
> > precedents, such as crashing into something after your properly
> > functioning
> > vehicle ran a red light is likely to lead to the driver being
> > found
> > negligent.)
> >
> > This does not require the AI to behave the same as people, and
> > is not a
> > full
> > recipe for "safe" AI. But it puts a floor on things in a way
> > that is
> > readily
> > actionable using existing legal mechanisms and theories. If a
> > reasonable
> > person would have avoided a harm, any AI that fails to avoid the
> > harm
> > would
> > be negligent.
> >
> > I've worked with a lawyer to propose this approach for automated
> > vehicles,
> > and it is starting to get some traction. What I write in this
> > post
> > (above)
> > is a
> > generalization of the concept beyond the narrow automated
> > vehicle application.
> > Details here:
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://safeautonomy.blogspot.com/2023/0
> > 5
> > /a-liability-approach-for-
> >
> > automated.html__;!!Dl6pPzL6!dV6V79CEWJVLcdXXS5n2wYWdaCGJCzdLlz4gg
> > 9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YMf2lF9o5xNrnA0Av-DS0QOuOFaUh295b5I$
> >
> > -- Phil
> >
> > On 6/21/2023 7:14 PM, Les Chambers wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > I find myself reflecting on what will become of us.
> > As systems engineering best practice is overrun by AI.
> >
> > Practitioners report that neural networks are eating code.
> > Example 1: The vector field surrounding a Tesla motor vehicle
> > is an output of a neural network, not the result of software
> > logic. Soon
> > the
> > neural net - not code - will generate controls. The size of
> > the code base is reducing. (Elon
> > Musk)
> > Example 2: the ChatGPT transformer code base is only 2000 LOC
> > (Mo Gawdat
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/bk-
> > nQ7HF6k4__;!!Dl6pPzL6!
> >
> > dV6V79CEWJVLcdXXS5n2wYWdaCGJCzdLlz4gg9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YMf2lF9o5xN
> > rnA0Av
> > -DS0QOuOFaUpIawiVG$ )
> >
> > The intelligence resides in terabytes of data, perceptrons and
> > millions of weighting parameters. All are gathered by
> > automated
> > means.
> > Not subject to human review.
> >
> > Ergo what will become of our trusty barriers to dangerous
> > failure:
> > 1. Safety functions - gone
> > 2. Verification - gone
> > 3. Code reviews - gone
> > 4. Validation - How?
> >
> > On validation, may I suggest the moral AI. A test oracle built
> > on a virtuous dataset, capable of interrogating the target
> > system to determine virtue. Test outcomes will morph from
> > pass/failure to
> > moral/immoral.
> >
> > Credible industry players have predicted that soon we will
> > have AIs orders of magnitude smarter than us. Especially when
> > they start
> > talking
> > to
> > each other.
> > The bandwidth will be eye-watering - the increase in
> > intelligence,
> > vertical.
> >
> > New barriers are required. Time to develop an AI that is on
> > our side
> > ÃffÃ,¢Ãf¢â?sÃ,¬Ãf¢â,¬Ã."
> > the side of ethics and the moral life. An adult in the room if
> > you like. We should birth this creature now and raise it as good
> > parents.
> >
> > Let us not panic. May I put the proposition: virtue, like
> > creativity, can be algorithmic.
> > I have a sense of starting from the beginning - tabula rasa. I
> > suggest
> > that high-level thinking on the subject could begin with
> > ChatGPT
> > prompts:
> > 1. What is the stoic philosopherÃffÃ,¢Ãf¢â?sÃ,¬Ãf¢â?
zÃ,¢s concept of
> > virtue?
> > 2. What are the elements of philosophy relevant to AI?
> >
> > Let us not forget our engineering mission: Guardians of the
> > divine Logos, the organizing principle of the universe,
> > responsible for its creation, maintenance, and order.
> >
> > Would anyone care to riff on this?
> >
> > Les
> >
> > --
> >
> > Les Chambers
> >
> > les at chambers.com.au
> > systemsengineeringblog.com
> >
> > +61 (0)412 648 992
> > _______________________________________________
> > The System Safety Mailing List
> > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> > Manage your subscription:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.techfak.uni-
> > bielefeld.de/mai
> >
> > lman/listinfo/systemsafety__;!!Dl6pPzL6!dV6V79CEWJVLcdXXS5n2wYWdaC
> > GJCz
> > dLlz4gg9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YMf2lF9o5xNrnA0Av-
> > DS0QOuOFaUjXMdlNF$
> >
> > --
> > Prof. Phil Koopman koopman at cmu.edu
> > (he/him)
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://users.ece.cmu.edu/*koopman/__;fg!
> >
> > !Dl6pPzL6!dV6V79CEWJVLcdXXS5n2wYWdaCGJCzdLlz4gg9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YM
> > f2lF9o5xNrnA0Av-DS0QOuOFaUnsUrevc$
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The System Safety Mailing List
> > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> > Manage your subscription:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.techfak.uni-
> >
> > bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety__;!!Dl6pPzL6!dV6V79CEWJVL
> > cd
> > XXS5n2wYWdaCGJCzdLlz4gg9Cz063kcikC8CIr0YMf2lF9o5xNrnA0Av-
> > DS0QOuOFaUjXMdlNF$
> >
> > #
> > " Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent
> > contenir des
> > informations confidentielles, ÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,ªtre soumis aux
> > rÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,¨glementations
> > relatives au
> > contrÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,´le des exportations ou ayant un
caractÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,¨re
> > privÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©.
> > S'ils ne
> > vous sont
> > pas destinÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©s, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement
interdit
> > de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque
> > maniÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,¨re que ce
> > soit
> > le contenu. Toute exportation ou rÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©exportation non
> > autorisÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©e
> > est interdite Si ce message vous a ÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©tÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©
transmis par
> > erreur,
> > merci d'en informer l'expÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©diteur et de supprimer
> > immÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©diatement
> > de votre systÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,¨me informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous
les
> > documents qui y sont attachÃffÃ?'Ãf,Ã,©s."
> > ******
> > " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential
> > or
> > proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws
> > and regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> > notified that
> > any
> > dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or
> > use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly
> > prohibited. Unauthorized export or re-export is prohibited. If you
> > have received this e-mail in
> > error,
> > please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all
> > attached
> > documents from your computer system."
> > #
> >
> > --
> >
> > Les Chambers
> >
> > les at chambers.com.au
> >
> > +61 (0)412 648 992
> >
> > #
> > " Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir
> > des
> > informations confidentielles, ÃffÃ,ªtre soumis aux
rÃffÃ,¨glementations
> > relatives au
> > contrÃffÃ,´le des exportations ou ayant un caractÃffÃ,¨re
privÃffÃ,©.
> S'ils ne
> > vous sont
> > pas destinÃffÃ,©s, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit
de les
> > divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque maniÃffÃ,¨re
que ce
> > soit
> > le contenu. Toute exportation ou rÃffÃ,©exportation non
autorisÃffÃ,©e est
> > interdite Si ce message vous a ÃffÃ,©tÃffÃ,© transmis par erreur,
merci
> d'en
> > informer l'expÃffÃ,©diteur et de supprimer immÃffÃ,©diatement de
votre
> > systÃffÃ,¨me informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui
y
> sont
> > attachÃffÃ,©s."
> > ******
> > " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or
> > proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and
> > regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
> > any
> > dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of
> > their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized
> > export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> > error,
> > please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all
> > attached
> > documents from your computer system."
> > #
> >
> > --
> >
> > Les Chambers
> >
> > les at chambers.com.au
> >
> > +61 (0)412 648 992
> >
> > #
> > " Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des
> > informations confidentielles, Ãfªtre soumis aux rÃf¨glementations
relatives
> au
> > contrÃf´le des exportations ou ayant un caractÃf¨re privÃf©.
S'ils ne vous
> sont
> > pas destinÃf©s, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de
les
> > divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque maniÃf¨re que
ce
> soit
> > le contenu. Toute exportation ou rÃf©exportation non autorisÃf©e
est
> interdite Si
> > ce message vous a Ãf©tÃf© transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer
> l'expÃf©diteur
> > et de supprimer immÃf©diatement de votre systÃf¨me informatique ce
courriel
> ainsi
> > que tous les documents qui y sont attachÃf©s."
> > ******
> > " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or
> > proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and
> > regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any
> > dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of
> > their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized
> > export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error,
> > please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all
attached
> > documents from your computer system."
> > #
> >
> > --
> >
> > Les Chambers
> >
> > les at chambers.com.au
> >
> > +61 (0)412 648 992
> > _______________________________________________
> > The System Safety Mailing List
> > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> > Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-
> bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
>
> --
>
> Les Chambers
>
> les at chambers.com.au
>
> +61 (0)412 648 992
--
Les Chambers
les at chambers.com.au
+61 (0)412 648 992
More information about the systemsafety
mailing list