Delgado 1

Jonathan Delgado
CST 300 Writing Lab
5 October 2018
How Far-Fetched is Skynet

Ever since the ​Terminator​ movies being based on an artificial superintelligence (ASI),

Skynet, taking over the world, there has been some worry in the world that an ASI could do

some real damage. In an increasingly digital age, we continue to bolster our reliance on

technology. This was not always the case, and a lot of the technologies we rely on today were

made before security was a prime concern. In recent years, governments have begun creating

military branches dedicated to cyber security, both to defend internal infrastructure and plan

offensive attacks if necessary. Stuxnet, a virus that was able to cause physical harm to Iran’s

nuclear program, is a good example of what these teams are capable of. If humans manually

finding these exploits are able to cause so much damage, it brings into question how much

damage a powerful ASI connected to the internet could do. There is an ongoing ethical argument

whether we as a society should continue to develop an ASI due to these concerns. The

development of an ASI is still largely an idea, no meaningful (publicly known) progress has been

made, so this debate is mostly a theoretical one. The two primary sides of this argument

recommend either to continue developing an ASI to better society, or we should discontinue

development of an ASI to prevent a possible future catastrophe.

There is a large difference between the AI we commonly refer to today versus the

concept of a machine that can self-improve or even become self-aware, which we can refer to as

an artificial superintelligence (ASI). The most common form of AI known to the public today

would be something like the Amazon Echo, or more commonly known as “Alexa” (Bogost,

2018). This consumer appliance responds to voice cues as if it was a human, using prebuilt
 Delgado 2

algorithms to determine how to respond. Alexa is not learning or intelligent by human standards,

the algorithms it uses makes it seem that way to the layman. When the user prompts Alexa, it

begins recording audio, that audio is transformed into text so a computer can begin processing it.

Once the query has been translated to text, algorithms try to determine the intent of the message

based on pre-programmed patterns. If you ask Alexa to do something outside of these

pre-programmed algorithms, it will simply reply with an error rather than attempting to “learn”

how to do it (Levels of AI Self-Improvement. n.d.). There are other common forms of AI as well,

for instance the concept of sentiment analysis which allows computers to determine the

sentiment of some text. This is extremely useful in the age of social media, allowing large

companies to quickly find and respond to messages with a negative sentiment, specifically. This

process uses an algorithm that compares the text it is analyzing against training data, this will

result in a percent match of that message against specific training data, usually a positive or

negative sentiment. Both Alexa and the process of sentiment analysis use the same basic concept,

they are simply algorithms that compare something to training data in order to extract some kind

of meaningful conclusion. The intelligence in this case is comparing a query to training data

while the learning is from a human manually updating that training data, to make better

comparisons in the future; there is nothing truly intelligent about these algorithms. On the flip

side, there is a concept of a much more advanced type of AI, an artificial superintelligence (ASI)

that is able to actually learn and self-improve on its own. This ASI would be a breakthrough in

technology, allowing us to combine the creativity and learning of the human brain with the fast

and accurate processing power that machines are great at. This ASI would be able to

self-improve, or modify its own training data to learn from previous failures; it would be able to
 Delgado 3

do this rapidly and constantly, never needing to rest or sleep (Gent, E. 2017). This would allow

the ASI to learn about its possibilities and environment at an unprecedented rate. Many large

companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft are currently attempting to build

an ASI (Orf, 2016).

There are a large amount of proponents for ASI development with notable minds such as

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Eric Schmidt openly supporting it. The main

reasoning behind supporting its development is to allow more things to be automated, which

could be a huge help to our society. Consider the possibility in which most jobs could be

completely automated and humans were able to spend their time working on whatever they

wanted, assuming there was some kind of universal basic income in place. Additionally, consider

the possibility of combining the versatility of a human mind with the speed and precision of a

machine that can do complex calculations. We could be looking at a time of great scientific

discoveries, allowing humanity to evolve at an even faster rate. If either one of these realities

were to come true, the entire world could benefit. A notable claim of value to support ASI

development from Eric Schmidt puts an interesting light on the topic, “I don’t think there is a

strong positive correlation between intelligence and the desire to dominate… we have the desire

to dominate because we are social animals, but the same isn’t true for machines” (Collins, 2018).

Schmidt notes that even if the ASI were to become self aware, we would most likely not be in

danger because it would not necessarily have the desire to dominate, that is just a human trait

that we are applying to machines. All arguments to continue to develop ASI would assume either

the ASI would not have the will to harm us, or it would be hindered in such a way that it would

be unable to. We can further rationalize this train of thought by looking at the “Common-Good
 Delgado 4

Approach” ethical framework, which states mankind should be producing what is best for the

people as a whole (Brown University, n.d.). This framework was made by Plato and Aristotle

who were ancient Greek philosophers, “promoting the perspective that our actions should

contribute to ethical communal life” (Brown University, n.d.). It became more prominent thanks

to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher, “who argued that the best society should be

guided by the ‘general will’ of the people, which would then produce what is best for the people

as a whole” (Brown University, n.d.). This framework indicates that we, as a society, have an

obligation to produce technologies, such as an ASI, that would benefit both ourselves and future

generations. For this concept to succeed, these companies would need to be able to continue ASI

development unhindered.

Another way to view this issue is the possibility of something going wrong while

developing ASI. Elon Musk has been very vocal recently claiming that an ASI could be the end

to humanity as we know it, going as far to make a claim of value stating an ASI could be an

“immortal dictator from which we would never escape” (Thompson, 2018). Similar claims of

value were brought up by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, claiming it could be an end to

mankind (Cellan-Jones, 2014.). To fully understand what could go wrong, we must understand

what an ASI could do in this scenario. If an ASI was able to connect to the internet, it could be

able to replicate itself to countless computers. Once it would be able to replicate, it would

become the world's smartest virus, doing whatever it would take to survive. It could even modify

something like blockchain applications to harness processing power. From there, it could take

over physical factories, control our infrastructure and much more, the possibilities are endless.

We as humans are extremely reliant on technology, and the aforementioned cyber branches of
 Delgado 5

the military would not be able to act quick enough to keep up against such an attack. It is easy to

dismiss claims like this as another “Y2K” conspiracy theory, but there is a very real possibility

of an ASI getting out of control; so much so that Google has created an “AI off switch” to ensure

a human operator can “take control of a robot that is misbehaving [that] may lead to irreversible

consequences” (Orf, 2016). A well honed ASI might be able to iterate at such a quick rate that

the off switch would not be able to deployed in time when something starts getting out of hand

(Clifford, 2018). Development of an ASI could even be compared to the initial test of the atomic

bomb, where scientists calculated a certain percent chance that the atmosphere may catch on fire

and end life on this planet as we knew it, but they proceeded anyway; we may be aware that an

ASI could end humanity, but we will still proceed. It is also possible that this ASI technology

might become weaponized as a way to either wage war on other countries or ensure obedience

from a country's citizens, this might lead to a new form of a nuclear arms race. We can relate this

line of thinking to the “Utilitarian Approach” ethical framework to further rationalize this

argument, which could be summarized as “the best life is one that produces the least pain and

distress” (Brown University, n.d.). It was created by Epicurus of Samos, who was an ancient

Greek philosopher. Under this framework, we should not continue developing an ASI because

the good it could provide is not matched with the possible devastation it could cause. There are

two possible solutions to either eliminate or reduce the risks of the aforementioned negative

impacts. First and most absolute, we as a society could ban and completely prevent ASI

development, this would completely remove the risk of ASI. If society still wanted to roll the

dice with an ASI, but with better ratio of risk to reward, we could look to another possibility. We

could put severe limits on ASI implementations, this would include disallowing it internet
 Delgado 6

connectivity, limiting processing power and implementing other further sandboxing techniques

to prevent it from getting out of human control.

Society should continue to develop an ASI, however, it should be done in a safe and

controlled environment to mitigate the risk of a disaster scenario. It is in society’s best interest to

continue developing an ASI, the benefits of which would exponentially increase our already

rapid pace of technological advancement, making a tremendous impact on human history.

Consider an ASI that could solve all of our crises. Things like cancer and world hunger could be

solved at the speed of the processing power we allot it. We owe future generations a chance to

live better lives than we have, and continuing to develop an ASI may provide that for them.

However, there are many considerations to worry about if we go down this path. First, ASI

development should be hindered by at least disallowing internet connectivity and limiting

processing power. It is in humanities best interest to play it safe with an ASI, we should treat it

as if it could be dangerous to ensure our survival as a species. Proper and thorough sandboxing

should eliminate a significant amount of risk when developing an ASI while not significantly

slowing down or hurting its development. It would be irresponsible to allow an ASI which could

self-improve to be ran without constraints. Another consideration is the impact it would have on

society. If an ASI is able to automate millions of jobs, we would be looking at millions of

unemployed workers almost overnight, which would require governments to either create jobs or

instantiate something like a universal basic income program. This might lead to a system in

which currency would be removed because so many jobs could be automated, leading to a

fundamental shift in economies. This shift would undoubtedly have a short term negative impact,

but if we can get past that point, we could transcend into a new global economy and way of
 Delgado 7

thinking, plunging our society into a new era. This opinion is mostly in the center of these two

sides, aligning slightly more with the argument against due to the call for sandboxing and other

limits when developing and deploying an ASI. We as a society have an ethical obligation to

future generations to do all we can now to make their lives better according to the

“Common-Good Approach” ethical framework. In the same train of thought, small negative road

bumps that occur along the way to much larger advanced should not be a deterrent according to

the “Utilitarian Approach” ethical framework. Companies should continue their current efforts to

develop an ASI, but in a safe way.

The development of an ASI is still largely an idea, but this theoretical ethical debate is a

very important one for the technology industry to have, now more than ever. An ASI is

significantly different than the consumer-grade AI that we have become accustomed to, these are

advanced self-learning and possibly even self-aware levels of intelligence that we are artificially

creating. There is no doubt that an ASI would be able to bring a lot of benefits to society, we

could automate millions of jobs, make groundbreaking technological advances quickly and solve

monumental challenges. However, there may be truly disastrous consequences if an ASI is

allowed too much freedom. We, as a society, must decide to continue to allow an ASI to be

developed, place legal rules hindering future ASI’s access, or prevent them from being

developed all together. My recommendation would be that we continue developing ASI’s, but

sandbox them to prevent a possible catastrophe. We should continue to develop an ASI, but do

so in a way that greatly mitigates the risk of it getting out of control. If we can implement ASI’s

correctly, we can end up in a new golden era; however, if we cannot, we might be looking at the

end of civilization as we know it.

 Delgado 8

References

Bogost, I. (2017, July 31). Why Zuckerberg and Musk Are Fighting About the Robot Future.

Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/musk-vs-zuck/535077/

Brown University. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-eth

ical-decisions

Cellan-Jones, R. (2014, December 02). Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end

mankind. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

Clifford, C. (2018, March 14). Elon Musk: 'Mark my words - A.I. is far more dangerous than

nukes'. Retrieved from

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/elon-musk-at-sxsw-a-i-is-more-dangerous-than-nuclear

-weapons.html

Collins, K. (2018, May 25). Elon Musk is 'exactly wrong' on AI, says Google's Eric Schmidt.

Retrieved from

https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-is-exactly-wrong-on-ai-says-googles-eric-schmidt/

Gent, E. (2017, May 31). Google's AI-Building AI Is a Step Toward Self-Improving AI.

Retrieved from

https://singularityhub.com/2017/05/31/googles-ai-building-ai-is-a-step-toward-self-improv

ing-ai/

Levels of AI Self-Improvement. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/os7N7nJoezWKQnnuW/levels-of-ai-self-improvement
 Delgado 9

Orf, D. (2016, June 03). Google Doesn't Want to Accidentally Make Skynet, So It's Creating an

AI Off Switch. Retrieved from

https://gizmodo.com/google-doesnt-want-to-accidentally-make-skynet-so-its-1780317950

Thompson, C. (2018, April 06). Elon Musk warns that creation of 'god-like' AI could doom

mankind to an eternity of robot dictatorship. Retrieved from

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-ai-could-lead-to-robot-dictator-2018-4