Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A
■ Success in the quest for artificial rtificial intelligence (AI) research has explored a variety
intelligence has the potential to bring of problems and approaches since its inception, but for
unprecedented benefits to humanity, the last 20 years or so has been focused on the prob-
and it is therefore worthwhile to inves- lems surrounding the construction of intelligent agents —
tigate how to maximize these benefits
systems that perceive and act in some environment. In this
while avoiding potential pitfalls. This
article gives numerous examples (which context, the criterion for intelligence is related to statistical
should by no means be construed as an and economic notions of rationality — colloquially, the abil-
exhaustive list) of such worthwhile ity to make good decisions, plans, or inferences. The adop-
research aimed at ensuring that AI tion of probabilistic representations and statistical learning
remains robust and beneficial. methods has led to a large degree of integration and cross-
fertilization between AI, machine learning, statistics, control
theory, neuroscience, and other fields. The establishment of
shared theoretical frameworks, combined with the availabil-
ity of data and processing power, has yielded remarkable suc-
cesses in various component tasks such as speech recogni-
tion, image classification, autonomous vehicles, machine
translation, legged locomotion, and question-answering sys-
tems.
Copyright © 2015, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. ISSN 0738-4602 WINTER 2015 105
Articles
As capabilities in these areas and others cross the economists and computer scientists agree that there
threshold from laboratory research to economically is valuable research to be done on how to maximize
valuable technologies, a virtuous cycle takes hold the economic benefits of AI while mitigating adverse
whereby even small improvements in performance effects, which could include increased inequality and
have significant economic value, prompting greater unemployment (Mokyr 2014; Brynjolfsson and
investments in research. There is now a broad con- McAfee 2014; Frey and Osborne 2013; Glaeser 2014;
sensus that AI research is progressing steadily, and Shanahan 2015; Nilsson 1984; Manyika et al. 2013).
that its impact on society is likely to increase. The Such considerations motivate a range of research
potential benefits are huge, since everything that civ- directions, spanning areas from economics to psy-
ilization has to offer is a product of human intelli- chology. Examples include the following.
gence; we cannot predict what we might achieve Labor Market Forecasting:
when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI When and in what order should we expect various
may provide, but the eradication of disease and jobs to become automated (Frey and Osborne 2013)?
poverty is not unfathomable. Because of the great How will this affect the wages of less skilled workers,
potential of AI, it is valuable to investigate how to the creative professions, and various kinds of infor-
reap its benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls. mation workers? Some have have argued that AI is
Progress in AI research makes it timely to focus likely to greatly increase the overall wealth of
research not only on making AI more capable, but humanity as a whole (Brynjolfsson and McAfee
also on maximizing the societal benefit of AI. Such 2014). However, increased automation may push
considerations motivated the AAAI 2008–09 Presi- income distribution further towards a power law
dential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures (Horvitz and (Brynjolfsson, McAfee, and Spence 2014), and the
Selman 2009) and other projects and community resulting disparity may fall disproportionately along
efforts on AI’s future impacts. These constitute a sig- lines of race, class, and gender; research anticipating
nificant expansion of the field of AI itself, which up the economic and societal impact of such disparity
to now has focused largely on techniques that are could be useful.
neutral with respect to purpose. The present docu- Other Market Disruptions
ment can be viewed as a natural continuation of Significant parts of the economy, including finance,
these efforts, focusing on identifying research direc- insurance, actuarial, and many consumer markets,
tions that can help maximize the societal benefit of could be susceptible to disruption through the use of
AI. This research is by necessity interdisciplinary, AI techniques to learn, model, and predict human
because it involves both society and AI. It ranges and market behaviors. These markets might be iden-
from economics, law, and philosophy to computer tified by a combination of high complexity and high
security, formal methods, and, of course, various rewards for navigating that complexity (Manyika et
branches of AI itself. The focus is on delivering AI al. 2013).
that is beneficial to society and robust in the sense
Policy for Managing Adverse Effects
that the benefits are guaranteed: our AI systems must
What policies could help increasingly automated
do what we want them to do. societies flourish? For example, Brynjolfsson and
This article was drafted with input from the atten- McAfee (2014) explore various policies for incen-
dees of the 2015 conference The Future of AI: Oppor- tivizing development of labor-intensive sectors and
tunities and Challenges (see Acknowledgements), for using AI-generated wealth to support underem-
and was the basis for an open letter that has collect- ployed populations. What are the pros and cons of
ed nearly 7000 signatures in support of the research interventions such as educational reform, appren-
priorities outlined here. ticeship programs, labor-demanding infrastructure
projects, and changes to minimum wage law, tax
Short-Term Research Priorities structure, and the social safety net (Glaeser 2014)?
History provides many examples of subpopulations
Short-term research priorities including optimizing not needing to work for economic security, ranging
AI’s economic impact, research in law and ethics, and from aristocrats in antiquity to many present-day cit-
computer science research for robust AI. In this sec- izens of Qatar. What societal structures and other fac-
tion, each of these priorities will, in turn, be dis- tors determine whether such populations flourish?
cussed. Unemployment is not the same as leisure, and there
are deep links between unemployment and unhappi-
Optimizing AI’s Economic Impact ness, self-doubt, and isolation (Hetschko, Knabe, and
The successes of industrial applications of AI, from Schöb 2014; Clark and Oswald 1994); understanding
manufacturing to information services, demonstrate what policies and norms can break these links could
a growing impact on the economy, although there is significantly improve the median quality of life.
disagreement about the exact nature of this impact Empirical and theoretical research on topics such as
and on how to distinguish between the effects of AI the basic income proposal could clarify our options
and those of other information technologies. Many (Van Parijs 1992; Widerquist et al. 2013).
106 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
Security: How to prevent intentional manipulation Work in adaptive control theory (Åström and Wit-
by unauthorized parties. tenmark 2013), the theory of so-called cyberphysical
Control: How to enable meaningful human control systems (Platzer 2010), and verification of hybrid or
over an AI system after it begins to operate. (OK, I robotic systems (Alur 2011; Winfield, Blum, and Liu
built the system wrong; can I fix it?) 2014) is highly relevant but also faces the same diffi-
Verification culties. And of course all these issues are laid on top
By verification, we mean methods that yield high of the standard problem of proving that a given soft-
confidence that a system will satisfy a set of formal ware artifact does in fact correctly implement, say, a
constraints. When possible, it is desirable for systems reinforcement learning algorithm of the intended
in safety-critical situations, for example, self-driving type. Some work has been done on verifying neural
cars, to be verifiable. network applications (Pulina and Tacchella 2010;
Formal verification of software has advanced sig- Taylor 2006; Schumann and Liu 2010) and the
nificantly in recent years: examples include the seL4 notion of partial programs (Andre and Russell 2002;
kernel (Klein et al. 2009), a complete, general-pur- Spears 2006) allows the designer to impose arbitrary
pose operating system kernel that has been mathe- structural constraints on behavior, but much remains
matically checked against a formal specification to to be done before it will be possible to have high con-
give a strong guarantee against crashes and unsafe fidence that a learning agent will learn to satisfy its
operations, and HACMS, DARPA’s “clean-slate, for- design criteria in realistic contexts.
mal methods-based approach” to a set of high-assur- Validity
ance software tools (Fisher 2012). Not only should it A verification theorem for an agent design has the
be possible to build AI systems on top of verified sub- form, “If environment satisfies assumptions ϕ then
strates; it should also be possible to verify the designs behavior satisfies requirements ψ.” There are two
of the AI systems themselves, particularly if they fol- ways in which a verified agent can, nonetheless, fail
low a componentized architecture, in which guaran- to be a beneficial agent in actuality: first, the envi-
tees about individual components can be combined ronmental assumption ϕ is false in the real world,
according to their connections to yield properties of leading to behavior that violates the requirements ψ;
the overall system. This mirrors the agent architec- second, the system may satisfy the formal require-
tures used in Russell and Norvig (2010), which sepa- ment ψ but still behave in ways that we find highly
rate an agent into distinct modules (predictive mod- undesirable in practice. It may be the case that this
els, state estimates, utility functions, policies, undesirability is a consequence of satisfying ψ when
learning elements, and others), and has analogues in ϕ is violated; that is, had ϕ held the undesirability
some formal results on control system designs. would not have been manifested; or it may be the
Research on richer kinds of agents — for example, case that the requirement ψ is erroneous in itself. Rus-
agents with layered architectures, anytime compo- sell and Norvig (2010) provide a simple example: if a
nents, overlapping deliberative and reactive ele- robot vacuum cleaner is asked to clean up as much
ments, metalevel control, and so on — could con- dirt as possible, and has an action to dump the con-
tribute to the creation of verifiable agents, but we tents of its dirt container, it will repeatedly dump and
lack the formal algebra to properly define, explore, clean up the same dirt. The requirement should focus
and rank the space of designs. not on dirt cleaned up but on cleanliness of the floor.
Perhaps the most salient difference between verifi- Such specification errors are ubiquitous in software
cation of traditional software and verification of AI sys- verification, where it is commonly observed that
tems is that the correctness of traditional software is writing correct specifications can be harder than writ-
defined with respect to a fixed and known machine ing correct code. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
model, whereas AI systems — especially robots and verify the specification: the notions of beneficial and
other embodied systems — operate in environments desirable are not separately made formal, so one can-
that are at best partially known by the system design- not straightforwardly prove that satisfying ψ neces-
er. In these cases, it may be practical to verify that the sarily leads to desirable behavior and a beneficial
system acts correctly given the knowledge that it has, agent.
avoiding the problem of modelling the real environ- In order to build systems that robustly behave well,
ment (Dennis et al. 2013). A lack of design-time knowl- we of course need to decide what good behavior
edge also motivates the use of learning algorithms means in each application domain. This ethical ques-
within the agent software, and verification becomes tion is tied intimately to questions of what engineer-
more difficult: statistical learning theory gives so-called ing techniques are available, how reliable these tech-
ε – δ (probably approximately correct) bounds, mostly niques are, and what trade-offs can be made — all
for the somewhat unrealistic settings of supervised areas where computer science, machine learning, and
learning from i.i.d. data and single-agent reinforce- broader AI expertise is valuable. For example, Wal-
ment learning with simple architectures and full lach and Allen (2008) argue that a significant consid-
observability, but even then requiring prohibitively eration is the computational expense of different
large sample sizes to obtain meaningful guarantees. behavioral standards (or ethical theories): if a stan-
108 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
dard cannot be applied efficiently enough to guide trol-granting techniques. The design of systems and
behavior in safety-critical situations, then cheaper protocols for transition between automated naviga-
approximations may be needed. Designing simplified tion and human control is a promising area for fur-
rules — for example, to govern a self-driving car’s ther research. Such issues also motivate broader
decisions in critical situations — will likely require research on how to optimally allocate tasks within
expertise from both ethicists and computer scientists. human–computer teams, both for identifying situa-
Computational models of ethical reasoning may tions where control should be transferred, and for
shed light on questions of computational expense applying human judgment efficiently to the highest-
and the viability of reliable ethical reasoning meth- value decisions.
ods (Asaro 2006, Sullins 2011).
Security
Security research can help make AI more robust. As AI
Long-Term Research Priorities
systems are used in an increasing number of critical A frequently discussed long-term goal of some AI
roles, they will take up an increasing proportion of researchers is to develop systems that can learn from
cyberattack surface area. It is also probable that AI experience with humanlike breadth and surpass
and machine-learning techniques will themselves be human performance in most cognitive tasks, thereby
used in cyberattacks. having a major impact on society. If there is a non-
Robustness against exploitation at the low level is negligible probability that these efforts will succeed
closely tied to verifiability and freedom from bugs. in the foreseeable future, then additional current
For example, the DARPA SAFE program aims to build research beyond that mentioned in the previous sec-
an integrated hardware-software system with a flexi- tions will be motivated as exemplified next, to help
ble metadata rule engine, on which can be built ensure that the resulting AI will be robust and bene-
memory safety, fault isolation, and other protocols ficial.
that could improve security by preventing Assessments of this success probability vary wide-
exploitable flaws (DeHon et al. 2011). Such programs ly between researchers, but few would argue with
cannot eliminate all security flaws (since verification great confidence that the probability is negligible,
is only as strong as the assumptions that underly the given the track record of such predictions. For exam-
specification), but could significantly reduce vulner- ple, Ernest Rutherford, arguably the greatest nuclear
abilities of the type exploited by the recent Heart- physicist of his time, said in 1933 — less than 24
bleed and Bash bugs. Such systems could be prefer- hours before Szilard’s invention of the nuclear chain
entially deployed in safety-critical applications, reaction — that nuclear energy was “moonshine”
where the cost of improved security is justified. (Press 1933), and astronomer Royal Richard Woolley
At a higher level, research into specific AI and called interplanetary travel “utter bilge” in 1956
machine-learning techniques may become increas- (Reuters 1956). Moreover, to justify a modest invest-
ingly useful in security. These techniques could be ment in this AI robustness research, this probability
applied to the detection of intrusions (Lane 2000), need not be high, merely nonnegligible, just as a
analyzing malware (Rieck et al. 2011), or detecting modest investment in home insurance is justified by
potential exploits in other programs through code a nonnegligible probability of the home burning
analysis (Brun and Ernst 2004). It is not implausible down.
that cyberattack between states and private actors
will be a risk factor for harm from near-future AI sys- Verification
tems, motivating research on preventing harmful Reprising the themes of short-term research, research
events. As AI systems grow more complex and are enabling verifiable low-level software and hardware
networked together, they will have to intelligently can eliminate large classes of bugs and problems in
manage their trust, motivating research on statistical- general AI systems; if such systems become increas-
behavioral trust establishment (Probst and Kasera ingly powerful and safety-critical, verifiable safety
2007) and computational reputation models (Sabater properties will become increasingly valuable. If the
and Sierra 2005). theory of extending verifiable properties from com-
Control ponents to entire systems is well understood, then
For certain types of safety-critical AI systems — espe- even very large systems can enjoy certain kinds of
cially vehicles and weapons platforms — it may be safety guarantees, potentially aided by techniques
desirable to retain some form of meaningful human designed explicitly to handle learning agents and
control, whether this means a human in the loop, on high-level properties. Theoretical research, especial-
the loop (Hexmoor, McLaughlan, and Tuli 2009; ly if it is done explicitly with very general and capa-
Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickens 2000), or some ble AI systems in mind, could be particularly useful.
other protocol. In any of these cases, there will be A related verification research topic that is dis-
technical work needed in order to ensure that mean- tinctive to long-term concerns is the verifiability of
ingful human control is maintained (UNIDIR 2014). systems that modify, extend, or improve themselves,
Automated vehicles are a test-bed for effective con- possibly many times in succession (Good 1965,
Vinge 1993). Attempting to straightforwardly apply sion making. However, there are still many open
formal verification tools to this more general setting problems in the foundations of reasoning and deci-
presents new difficulties, including the challenge sion. Solutions to these problems may make the
that a formal system that is sufficiently powerful can- behavior of very capable systems much more reliable
not use formal methods in the obvious way to gain and predictable. Example research topics in this area
assurance about the accuracy of functionally similar include reasoning and decision under bounded com-
formal systems, on pain of inconsistency through putational resources à la Horvitz and Russell (Horvitz
Gödel’s incompleteness (Fallenstein and Soares 2014; 1987; Russell and Subramanian 1995), how to take
Weaver 2013). It is not yet clear whether or how this into account correlations between AI systems’ behav-
problem can be overcome, or whether similar prob- iors and those of their environments or of other
lems will arise with other verification methods of agents (Tennenholtz 2004; LaVictoire et al. 2014;
similar strength. Hintze 2014; Halpern and Pass 2013; Soares and Fal-
Finally, it is often difficult to actually apply for- lenstein 2014c), how agents that are embedded in
mal verification techniques to physical systems, their environments should reason (Soares 2014a;
especially systems that have not been designed with Orseau and Ring 2012), and how to reason about
verification in mind. This motivates research pursu- uncertainty over logical consequences of beliefs or
ing a general theory that links functional specifica- other deterministic computations (Soares and Fallen-
tion to physical states of affairs. This type of theory stein 2014b). These topics may benefit from being
would allow use of formal tools to anticipate and considered together, since they appear deeply linked
control behaviors of systems that approximate (Halpern and Pass 2011; Halpern, Pass, and Seeman
rational agents, alternate designs such as satisficing 2014).
agents, and systems that cannot be easily described In the long term, it is plausible that we will want
in the standard agent formalism (powerful predic- to make agents that act autonomously and powerful-
tion systems, theorem provers, limited-purpose sci- ly across many domains. Explicitly specifying our
ence or engineering systems, and so on). It may also preferences in broad domains in the style of near-
be that such a theory could allow rigorous demon- future machine ethics may not be practical, making
strations that systems are constrained from taking aligning the values of powerful AI systems with our
certain kinds of actions or performing certain kinds own values and preferences difficult (Soares 2014b,
of reasoning. Soares and Fallenstein 2014a).
Consider, for instance, the difficulty of creating a
Validity utility function that encompasses an entire body of
As in the short-term research priorities, validity is law; even a literal rendition of the law is far beyond
concerned with undesirable behaviors that can arise our current capabilities, and would be highly unsatis-
despite a system’s formal correctness. In the long factory in practice (since law is written assuming that
term, AI systems might become more powerful and it will be interpreted and applied in a flexible, case-
autonomous, in which case failures of validity could by-case way by humans who, presumably, already
carry correspondingly higher costs. embody the background value systems that artificial
Strong guarantees for machine-learning methods, agents may lack). Reinforcement learning raises its
an area we highlighted for short-term validity own problems: when systems become very capable
research, will also be important for long-term safety. and general, then an effect similar to Goodhart’s Law
To maximize the long-term value of this work, is likely to occur, in which sophisticated agents
machine-learning research might focus on the types attempt to manipulate or directly control their reward
of unexpected generalization that would be most signals (Bostrom 2014). This motivates research areas
problematic for very general and capable AI systems. that could improve our ability to engineer systems
In particular, it might aim to understand theoretical- that can learn or acquire values at run time. For exam-
ly and practically how learned representations of ple, inverse reinforcement learning may offer a viable
high-level human concepts could be expected to gen- approach, in which a system infers the preferences of
eralize (or fail to) in radically new contexts (Tegmark another rational or nearly rational actor by observing
2015). Additionally, if some concepts could be its behavior (Russell 1998, Ng and Russell 2000). Oth-
learned reliably, it might be possible to use them to er approaches could use different assumptions about
define tasks and constraints that minimize the underlying cognitive models of the actor whose pref-
chances of unintended consequences even when erences are being learned (Chu and Ghahramani
autonomous AI systems become very general and 2005), or could be explicitly inspired by the way
capable. Little work has been done on this topic, humans acquire ethical values. As systems become
which suggests that both theoretical and experimen- more capable, more epistemically difficult methods
tal research may be useful. could become viable, suggesting that research on such
Mathematical tools such as formal logic, probabil- methods could be useful; for example, Bostrom (2014)
ity, and decision theory have yielded significant reviews preliminary work on a variety of methods for
insight into the foundations of reasoning and deci- specifying goals indirectly.
110 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
would threaten humanity. Are such dystopic out- grammable Reinforcement Learning Agents. In Proceedings
comes possible? If so, how might these situations of the Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
arise? . . . What kind of investments in research should 119–125. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
be made to better understand and to address the pos- Asaro, P. 2008. How Just Could a Robot War Be? In Current
sibility of the rise of a dangerous superintelligence or Issues in Computing and Philosophy, ed. K. W. Adam Briggle
the occurrence of an “intelligence explosion”? and P. A. E. Brey , 50–64. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
(Horvitz 2014) Asaro, P. M. 2006. What Should We Want from a Robot Eth-
Research in this area could include any of the long- ic? International Review of Information Ethics 6(12): 9–16.
term research priorities listed previously, as well as Åström, K. J., and Wittenmark, B. 2013. Adaptive Control.
theoretical and forecasting work on intelligence Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications.
explosion and superintelligence (Chalmers 2010, Boden, M.; Bryson, J.; Caldwell, D.; Dautenhahn, K.;
Bostrom 2014), and could extend or critique existing Edwards, L.; Kember, S.; Newman, P.; Parry, V.; Pegman, G.;
approaches begun by groups such as the Machine Rodden, T.; Sorell, T.; Wallis, M.; WHitby, B.; Winfield, A.;
Intelligence Research Institute (Soares and Fallen- and Parry, V. 2011. Principles of Robotics. Swindon, UK: Engi-
stein 2014a). neering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
(www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/ourportfolio/themes/engineer-
ing/activities/principlesofrobotics)
Conclusion Bostrom, N. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
In summary, success in the quest for artificial intelli-
Bostrom, N. 2012. The Superintelligent Will: Motivation
gence has the potential to bring unprecedented ben- and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents.
efits to humanity, and it is therefore worthwhile to Minds and Machines 22(2): 71–85. dx.doi.org/10.1007/
research how to maximize these benefits while avoid- s11023-012-9281-3
ing potential pitfalls. The research agenda outlined Brun, Y., and Ernst, M. D. 2004. Finding Latent Code Errors
in this paper, and the concerns that motivate it, have Via Machine Learning over Program Executions. In Proceed-
been called anti-AI, but we vigorously contest this ings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineer-
characterization. It seems self-evident that the grow- ing, 480–495. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
ing capabilities of AI are leading to an increased dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2004.1317470
potential for impact on human society. It is the duty Brynjolfsson, E., and McAfee, A. 2014. The Second Machine
of AI researchers to ensure that the future impact is Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Tech-
beneficial. We believe that this is possible, and hope nologies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
that this research agenda provides a helpful step in Brynjolfsson, E.; McAfee, A.; and Spence, M. 2014. Labor,
the right direction. Capital, and Ideas in the Power Law Economy. Foreign
Affairs 93(4): 44.
Acknowledgements Calo, R. 2014a. The Case for a Federal Robotics Commis-
The initial version of this document was drafted with sion. Brookings Institution Report (May 2014). Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
major input from Janos Kramar and Richard Mallah,
and reflects valuable feedback from Anthony Aguirre, Calo, R. 2014b. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. Uni-
versity of Washington School of Law Legal Studies Research
Erik Brynjolfsson, Ryan Calo, Meia Chita-Tegmark,
Paper No. 2014.08. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Tom Dietterich, Dileep George, Bill Hibbard, Demis
Chalmers, D. 2010. The Singularity: A Philosophical Analy-
Hassabis, Eric Horvitz, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, James
sis. Journal of Consciousness Studies 17(9–10): 7–65.
Manyika, Luke Muehlhauser, Michael Osborne,
Chu, W., and Ghahramani, Z. 2005. Preference Learning
David Parkes, Heather Roff, Francesca Rossi, Bart Sel-
with Gaussian Processes. In Proceedings of the 22nd Interna-
man, Murray Shanahan, and many others. The
tional Conference on Machine Learning, 137–144. New York:
authors are also grateful to Serkan Cabi and David Association for Computing Machinery. dx.doi.org/10.1145/
Stanley for help with manuscript editing and for- 1102351.1102369
matting. Churchill, R. R., and Ulfstein, G. 2000. Autonomous Insti-
tutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental
References Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in Internation-
Agrawal, R., and Srikant, R. 2000. Privacy-Preserving Data al Law. American Journal of International Law 94(4): 623–659.
Mining. ACM Sigmod Record 29(2): 439–450. dx.doi.org/10. dx.doi.org/10.2307/2589775
1145/335191.335438 Clark, A. E., and Oswald, A. J. 1994. Unhappiness and
Alur, R. 2011. Formal Verification of Hybrid Systems. In Pro- Unemployment. The Economic Journal 104 (May): 648–659.
ceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Embed- dx.doi.org/10.2307/2234639
ded Software (EMSOFT), 273–278. Piscataway, NJ: Institute DeHon, A.; Karel, B.; Knight Jr, T. F.; Malecha, G.; Montagu,
for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. dx.doi.org/10.1145/ B.; Morisset, R.; Morrisett, G.; Pierce, B. C.; Pollack, R.; Ray,
2038642.2038685 S.; Shivers, O.; and Smith, J. M. 2011. Preliminary Design of
Anderson, K.; Reisner, D.; and Waxman, M. C. 2014. Adapt- the SAFE Platform. In PLOS ’11: Proceedings of the 6th Work-
ing the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Sys- shop on Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New
tems. International Law Studies 90: 386–411. York: Association for Computing Machinery. dx.doi.org/
Andre, D., and Russell, S. J. 2002. State Abstraction For Pro- 10.1145/2039239.2039245
112 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
Dennis, L. A.; Fisher, M.; Lincoln, N. K.; Iklé, 107–116. Berlin: Springer. dx.doi.org/ form Life, Business, and the Global Econo-
Lisitsa, A.; and Veres, S. M. 2013. Practical 10.1007/978-3-642-35506-6_12 my. Report (May). Washington, D.C.: McK-
Verification of Decision-Making in Agent- Hibbard, B. 2014. Ethical Artificial Intelli- insey Global Institute.
Based Autonomous Systems. ArXiv Preprint gence. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: arX- Mokyr, J. 2014. Secular Stagnation? Not in
ArXiv:1310.2431. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- iv:1411.1373. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Universi- Your Life. In Secular Stagnation: Facts, Caus-
versity Library. ty Library. es and Cures, ed. C. Teulings and R. Baldwin,
Docherty, B. L. 2012. Losing Humanity: The Hibbard, B. 2015. Self-Modeling Agents and 83. London: Centre for Economic Policy
Case Against Killer Robots. New York: Human Reward Generator Corruption. In Artificial Research (CEPR)
Rights Watch. Intelligence and Ethics: Papers from the AAAI Ng, A. Y., and Russell, S. 2000. Algorithms
Fallenstein, B., and Soares, N. 2014. 2015 Workshop, ed. T. Walsh, 61–64, AAAI for Inverse Reinforcement Learning. In Pro-
Vingean Reflection: Reliable Reasoning for Technical Report WS-15-02. Palo Alto, CA: ceedings of the 17th International Conference
Self-Modifying Agents. Technical Report, AAAI Press. on Machine Learning, 663–670. San Francis-
Machine Intelligence Research Institute, Hintze, D. 2014. Problem Class Dominance co: Morgan Kaufmann
Berkeley, CA. in Predictive Dilemmas. Honors Thesis, Bar- Nilsson, N. J. 1984. Artificial Intelligence,
Fisher, K. 2012. HACMS: High Assurance rett, the Honors College, Arizona State Uni- Employment, and Income. AI Magazine
Cyber Military Systems. In Proceedings of the versity, Tempe, AZ. 5(2): 5.
2012 ACM Conference on High Integrity Lan- Horvitz, E. 2014. One-Hundred Year Study Omohundro, S. M. 2007. The Nature of Self-
guage Technology, 51–52. New York: Associa- of Artificial Intelligence: Reflections and Improving Artificial Intelligence. Talk pre-
tion for Computing Machinery. Framing, White paper, Stanford University, sented at the Singularity Summit, San Fran-
dx.doi.org/10.1145/2402676.2402695 Stanford, CA (ai100.stanford.edu). cisco, CA 8–9.
Frey, C., and Osborne, M. 2013. The Future Horvitz, E., and Selman, B. 2009. Interim Orseau, L., and Ring, M. 2012. Space-Time
of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs Report from the Panel Chairs: AAAI Presi- Embedded Intelligence. In Artificial General
to Computerisation? Technical Report, dential Panel on Long Term AI Futures. Intelligence, 5th International Conference (AGI
Oxford Martin School, University of AAAI Panel held 21–22 February, Pacific 2012), ed. J. Bach, B. Goertzel, Matthew
Oxford, Oxford, UK. Grove, CA. (www.aaai.org/Organization/ Iklé, 209–218. Berlin: Springer.
Glaeser, E. L. 2014. Secular Joblessness. In Panel/panel-note.pdf) dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35506-6_22
Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes, and Cures, Horvitz, E. J. 1987. Reasoning About Beliefs Parasuraman, R.; Sheridan, T. B.; and Wick-
ed. C. Teulings and R. Baldwin, 69–82. Lon- and Actions Under Computational ens, C. D. 2000. A Model for Types and Lev-
don: Centre for Economic Policy Research Resource Constraints. Paper presented at els of Human Interaction with Automation.
(CEPR) the Third Workshop on Uncertainty in Arti- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Good, I. J. 1965. Speculations Concerning ficial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, July 12. Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans.
the First Ultraintelligent Machine. Advances Klein, G.; Elphinstone, K.; Heiser, G.; 30(3): 286–297. dx.doi.org/10.1109/3468.
In Computers 6(1965): 31–88. dx.doi.org/10. 844354
Andronick, J.; Cock, D.; Derrin, P.; Elka-
1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0 duwe, D.; Engelhardt, K.; Kolanski, R.; Nor- Platzer, A. 2010. Logical Analysis of Hybrid
Halpern, J. Y., and Pass, R. 2011. I Don’t rish, M.; Sewell, T.; Tuch, H.; and Winwood, Systems: Proving Theorems for Complex
Want to Think About It Now: Decision The- S. 2009. SeL4: Formal Verification of an OS Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ory with Costly Computation. ArXiv Kernel. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM ence Volume 7386. Berlin: Springer.
Preprint ArXiv:1106.2657. Ithaca, NY: Cor- SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Prin- Press, A. 1933. Atom-Powered World
nell University Library. dx.doi.org/10.1111/ ciples, 207–220. New York: Association for Absurd, Scientists Told. New York Herald
tops.12088 Computing Machinery. dx.doi.org/10. Tribune September 12, p. 1.
Halpern, J. Y., and Pass, R. 2013. Game The- 1145/1629575.1629596 Probst, M. J., and Kasera, S. K. 2007. Statis-
ory with Translucent Players. ArXiv Preprint Lane, T. D. 2000. Machine Learning Tech- tical Trust Establishment in Wireless Sensor
ArXiv:1308.3778. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- niques for the Computer Security Domain Networks. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE
versity Library. of Anomaly Detection. Ph.D. Dissertation, International Conference on Parallel and Dis-
Halpern, J. Y.; Pass, R.; and Seeman, L. 2014. Department of Electrical Engineering, Pur- tributed Systems, volume 2, 1–8. Piscataway,
Decision Theory with Resource-Bounded due University, Lafayette, IN. NJ: Institute for Electrical and Electronics
Agents. Topics In Cognitive Science 6(2): 245– LaVictoire, P.; Fallenstein, B.; Yudkowsky, Engineers. dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPADS.
257. E.; Barasz, M.; Christiano, P.; and Her- 2007.4447736
Hetschko, C.; Knabe, A.; and Schöb, R. reshoff, M. 2014. Program Equilibrium in Pulina, L., and Tacchella, A. 2010. An
2014. Changing Identity: Retiring from the Prisoner’s Dilemma Via Löb’s Theorem. Abstraction-Refinement Approach to Verifi-
Unemployment. The Economic Journal In Multiagent Interaction Without Prior cation of Artificial Neural Networks. In
124(575): 149–166. dx.doi.org/10.1111/ Coordination: Papers from the 2014 AAAI Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in
ecoj.12046 Workshop. Technical Report WS-14-09. Computer Science Volume 6174, 243–257.
Hexmoor, H.; McLaughlan, B.; and Tuli, G. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press. Berlin: Springer. dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
2009. Natural Human Role in Supervising Manyika, J.; Chui, M.; Brown, B.; Bughin, J.; 642-14295-6_24
Complex Control Systems. Journal of Exper- Dobbs, R.; Roxburgh, C.; and Byers, A. H. Reuters. 1956. Space Travel ‘Utter Bilge.’ The
imental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2011. Big Data: The Next Frontier for Inno- Ottawa Citizen, January 3, p. 1.
21(1): 59–77. dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528130 vation, Competition, and Productivity. Rieck, K.; Trinius, P.; Willems, C.; and Holz,
802386093 Report (May). Washington, D.C.: McKinsey T. 2011. Automatic Analysis of Malware
Hibbard, B. 2012. Avoiding Unintended AI Global Institute. Behavior Using Machine Learning. Journal
Behaviors. In Artificial General Intelligence, Manyika, J.; Chui, M.; Bughin, J.; Dobbs, R.; of Computer Security 19(4): 639–668.
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol- Bisson, P.; and Marrs, A. 2013. Disruptive Roff, H. M. 2013. Responsibility, Liability,
ume 7716, ed. J. Bach, B. Goertzel, and M. Technologies: Advances That Will Trans- and Lethal Autonomous Robots. In Rout-
ledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Formal Perspective, NASA Monographs in Causal Entropic Forces. Physical Review Let-
Theory in the 21st Century, 352. New York: Systems and Software Engineering, ed. C. ters 110(16): 168702. dx.doi.org/10.1103/
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Rouff, M. Hinchey, J. Rash, W. Truszkowski, PhysRevLett.110.168702
Roff, H. M. 2014. The Strategic Robot Prob- D. Gordon-Spears, 227–257. Berlin: Spring- Yampolskiy, R. 2012. Leakproofing the Sin-
lem: Lethal Autonomous Weapons in War. er. dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-271-3_8 gularity: Artificial Intelligence Confinement
Journal of Military Ethics 13(3): 211–227. Sullins, J. P. 2011. Introduction: Open Ques- Problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2014.975010 tions in Roboethics. Philosophy & Technology 19(1–2): 1–2.
Russell, S. 1998. Learning Agents for Uncer- 24(3): 233–238. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-
tain Environments. In Proceedings of the 011-0043-6
Eleventh Annual Conference On Computation- Taylor, B. J. E. 2006. Methods and Procedures
al Learning Theory, 101–103. New York: Asso- for the Verification and Validation of Artificial Stuart Russell is a professor of computer
ciation for Computing Machinery. Neural Networks. Berlin: Springer. science at the University of California,
dx.doi.org/10.1145/279943.279964 Berkeley. His research covers many aspects
Tegmark, M. 2015. Friendly Artificial Intel-
of artificial intelligence and machine learn-
Russell, S., and Norvig, P. 2010. Artificial ligence: the Physics Challenge. In Artificial
ing. He is a fellow of AAAI, ACM, and AAAS
Intelligence: A Modern Approach Third Edi- Intelligence and Ethics, ed. T. Walsh, AAAI
and winner of the IJCAI Computers and
tion. New York: Pearson, Inc. Technical Report WS-15-02, 87–89. Palo
Thought Award. He held the Chaire Blaise
Russell, S. J., and Subramanian, D. 1995. Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
Pascal in Paris from 2012 to 2014. His book
Provably Bounded-Optimal Agents. Journal Tennenholtz, M. 2004. Program Equilibri- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
of Artificial Intelligence Research 2: 575–609. um. Games and Economic Behavior 49(2): (with Peter Norvig) is the standard text in
Sabater, J., and Sierra, C. 2005. Review on 363–373. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.02. the field.
Computational Trust and Reputation Mod- 002
UNIDIR. 2014. The Weaponization of Daniel Dewey is the Alexander Tamas
els. Artificial Intelligence Review 24(1): 33–60.
Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Research Fellow on Machine Superintelli-
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10462-004-0041-5
Implications for Security and Arms Control. gence and the Future of AI at Oxford’s
Schumann, J. M., and Liu, Y. 2010. Applica- Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford Mar-
UNIDIR Report No. 2. Geneva, Switzerland:
tions of Neural Networks in High Assurance tin School. He was previously at Google,
United National Institute for Disarmanent
Systems, Studies in Computational Intelli- Intel Labs Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon
Research.
gence Volume 268. Berlin: Springer. University.
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10690-3 Van Parijs, P. 1992. Arguing for Basic Income.
Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform. New Max Tegmark is a professor of physics at
Shanahan, M. 2015. The Technological Singu-
York: Verso. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
larity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vinge, V. 1993. The Coming Technological His current research is at the interface of
Singer, P. W., and Friedman, A. 2014. Cyber- physics and artificial intelligence, using
Singularity. In VISION-21 Symposium,
security: What Everyone Needs to Know. New physics-based techniques to explore con-
NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio
York: Oxford University Press. nections between information processing
Aerospace Institute. NASA Technical Report
Soares, N. 2014a. Formalizing Two Problems CP-10129. Washington, DC: National Aero- in biological and engineered systems. He is
of Realistic World-Models, Technical Report, nautics and Space Administration. the president of the Future of Life Institute,
Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which supports research advancing robust
Vladeck, D. C. 2014. Machines Without
Berkeley, CA. and beneficial artificial intelligence.
Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial
Soares, N. 2014b. The Value Learning Prob- Intelligence. Washington Law Review 89(1):
lem, Technical Report, Machine Intelligence 117.
Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Weaver, N. 2013. Paradoxes of Rational
Soares, N., and Fallenstein, B. 2014a. Align- Agency and Formal Systems That Verify
ing Superintelligence with Human Interests: Their Own Soundness. ArXiv Preprint ArX-
A Technical Research Agenda, Technical iv:1312.3626. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Universi-
Report, Machine Intelligence Research Insti- ty Library.
tute, Berkeley, CA. Weld, D., and Etzioni, O. 1994. The First
Soares, N., and Fallenstein, B. 2014b. Ques- Law of Robotics (A Call to Arms). In Pro-
tions of Reasoning Under Logical Uncer- ceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on
tainty, Technical Report, Machine Intelli- Artificial Intelligence, 1042–1047. Menlo
gence Research Institute, Berkeley, CA. Park, CA: AAAI Press.
(intelligence.org/files/QuestionsLogical Widerquist, K.; Noguera, J. A.; Vander-
Uncertainty.pdf). borght, Y.; and De Wispelaere, J. 2013. Basic
Soares, N., and Fallenstein, B. 2014c. Income: An Anthology of Contemporary
Toward Idealized Decision Theory, Techni- Research. New York: Wiley/Blackwell.
cal Report, Machine Intelligence Research Winfield, A. F.; Blum, C.; and Liu, W. 2014.
Institute, Berkeley, CA. Towards an Ethical Robot: Internal Models,
Soares, N.; Fallenstein, B.; Yudkowsky, E.; Consequences and Ethical Action Selection.
and Armstrong, S. 2015. Corrigibility. In In Advances in Autonomous Robotics Systems,
Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, ed. T. Walsh, 15th Annual Conference. Lecture Notes in
AAAI Technical Report WS-15-02. Palo Alto, Artificial Intelligence, ed. M. Mistry, A.
CA: AAAI Press. Leonardis, M. Witkowski, and C. Melhuish,
Spears, D. F. 2006. Assuring the Behavior of 85–96. Berlin: Springer.
Adaptive Agents. In Agent Technology from a Wissner-Gross, A., and Freer, C. 2013.
114 AI MAGAZINE