second hand translation (was: [alicebot-aiethics] Interesting Article)

[Christopher Fahey [askROM]]

> FOCUS: "So, are you pleading for the creation of an 
> Ubermensch to take the place of the homo sapiens?"
> 
> Hawking: "By specifically editing the DNA we could increase 
> its complexity and thereby improve man. It will be a long 
> process, because one has to wait 18 years per generation to 
> notice the effect of genetic engineering. Nevertheless we 
> should choose this way if we want biological systems to 
> remain superiour to electronical systems. Unlike our 
> intellect, computers double their capacity in every 18 
> months. Thus the danger of [computers] developing 
> intelligence and taking over the world is real. So we must 
> develop technologies that facilitate direct connections 
> between the brain and computers as quickly as possible, so 
> artificial brains contribute to human intelligence instead of 
> turning against us."

Well, it's nice to see that at least Hawking is, in fact, considering
that we may become symbiotic with our AIs (i.e., cyborgs) rather than
merely in competition with them. But it's also even more troubling: He's
saying, essentially, "we must develop the Ubermensch now because our
current species is going to be incompatible with the AIs we develop in
the future".

Even though the development of various Ubermensch research projects is
inevitable, I still think it's creepy of Hawking to advocate it. One
ought not to even mention such things without also mentioning the
ethical risks involved, and it's weird that he would reply to a question
using the word "Ubermensch" (or 'super man') without pointing out that
he realizes the ethical minefield into which he is stepping. 

Again, I point out that even if such a project were to succeed (that is,
if it didn't release some new disease into the species or other such
disaster) it would still inevitably be unfairly applied, with the
benefits falling only to a wealthy, powerful few. 

This scenario, in fact, is what Ricardo Montalban's character Khan was
supposed to represent - a race of supermen/women who attempted world
conquest and genocide. I've always kind of admired the fact that in Star
Trek (particularly with the characters of Khan and Doctor Bashir on Deep
Space Nine) they have made it clear that in their world, major genetic
engineering is considered an abominable crime and that humans have
managed to cultivate a society where the machines, advanced as they are,
are still at the service of pretty much regular human people.

It doesn't sound like a *likely* future, but it's nice that Rodenberry,
et.al., saw fit to point out that we would do well to try to avoid
trying to make some humans superior to others. 

This is the sequence Hawking must imagine:

1. Everyone is human  ---> 
  2. The rich are superhuman, the poor are still human --->
     3. Everyone is superhuman

From my perspective, the step from getting from 2 to 3 will be
incredibly difficult to achieve without some horrendous crimes against
humanity being unleashed in the process. Members of the class/race of
rich supercyborgs will advocate things like exterminating the human poor
of the world, or forever limiting admission to the Ubermensch club based
on morally bankrupt criteria like ethnicity, IQ, or wealth. 

(What criteria, in fact, is *not* morally bankrupt? Our recent AI-Ethics
discussions about "who should get the cyborg body" amply demonstrate how
utterly ethically unprepared we are for this question.)

The step from 1 to 2 will need to be approached with great caution and
patience to avoid my disaster scenario. It should not be so casually
discussed as Hawking has done, as if our reluctance to take this step
was merely superstition or cowardice. If it takes hundreds of years for
us to, as a species, develop the moral readiness to alter ourselves so
deeply, so be it. The Nazis (and for that matter eugenicists all over
the world, including here in the USA) thought that because we had the
*technology* to manage the gene pool (the ability to, for example, find,
identify, and exterminate all retarded children) that we *should* do so.
Just because we will likely not be mentally compatible with the
supercomputers of the year 2100 doesn't mean that we should accelerate
the evolution of the next five generations of humanity through rapid,
ill-considered genetic engineering endeavors. History has proven such
efforts, on a national scale, can be disastrous atrocities. Is Hawking
also blind?

If he thinks that AIs taking over the world is a real problem, then I
say that we'd be better off making a concerted effort to cripple the
effect of Moore's Law (through international anti-AI legislation) than
we would be if we tried to genetically engineer the Ubermensch just to
keep up with the AI.

I don't mean to psychoanalyze or pre-judge Prof. Hawking, but I wonder
if a world-reknown genius who has lived a life as a cyborg and as a
tech-geek celebrity is someone who we should trust as a moral compass
anyway. 

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: www.graphpaper.com
science: www.askROM.com




> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org 
> [mailto:alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org] On Behalf 
> Of Christian Dro?mann
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:30 PM
> To: alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> Subject: second hand translation (was: [alicebot-aiethics] 
> Interesting Article)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noel Bush wrote:
> 
> > Well, actually I am a bit disappointed that even Stephen 
> Hawking has 
> > joined the club of technophobics... There might be a chance that AI 
> > will outsmart the human race in a very distant future, but whether 
> > this will be to our disadvantage or even a danger to us is 
> > questionable in my opinion...and I also would not consider 
> engineering 
> > the human DNA to increase our IQ a valid solution, if it is 
> a solution 
> > at all...
> 
> I am not sure if this makes him a technophobe...maybe someone 
> who reads German and can find the article mentioned can tell 
> us about what it
> 
> [...]
> 
> alright, I have a copy of the original article.
> I hope I will not make significant mistakes in the 
> translation. I also noticed, that the word "Ubermensch" is 
> actually mentioned...
> 
> The interview was done by Michael Odenwald for the German 
> magazine "Focus" and appeared in Issue 36/2001. The title is 
> "Ich konnte mit Einstein und Newton pokern" ("I could play 
> poker with Einstein and Newton", an allusion to an episode of 
> "Star Trek - The next generation" starring Stephen Hawking as 
> himself, playing poker with Einstein and Newton)
> 
> I will only translate the relevant part:
> 
> Hawking: "[...] Today aggression has has had its day as a 
> vital instinct. But darwinistic selection works way too slow 
> to eliminate it from our genes. I see our only hope in 
> genetic engineering."
> 
> FOCUS: "So, are you pleading for the creation of an 
> Ubermensch to take the place of the homo sapiens?"
> 
> Hawking: "By specifically editing the DNA we could increase 
> its complexity and thereby improve man. It will be a long 
> process, because one has to wait 18 years per generation to 
> notice the effect of genetic engineering. Nevertheless we 
> should choose this way if we want biological systems to 
> remain superiour to electronical systems. Unlike our 
> intellect, computers double their capacity in every 18 
> months. Thus the danger of [computers] developing 
> intelligence and taking over the world is real. So we must 
> develop technologies that facilitate direct connections 
> between the brain and computers as quickly as possible, so 
> artificial brains contribute to human intelligence instead of 
> turning against us."
> 
> 
> I hope this clears things up a bit...
> 
> Christian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-aiethics mailing list alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
>