Dr. Lance Eliot, AI Insider

AI Insider的Lance Eliot博士

[Ed. Note: For reader’s interested in Dr. Eliot’s ongoing business analyses about the advent of self-driving cars, see his online Forbes column: https://forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/]

[编辑 注意：如果读者对Eliot博士正在进行的有关自动驾驶汽车问世的业务分析感兴趣，请参阅他的在线《福布斯》专栏： https ： //forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/ ]

Sometimes a question seems so ridiculous that you feel compelled to reject its premise out-of-hand.

有时，一个问题看起来如此荒谬，以至于您不得不放弃它的前提。

Let’s give this a whirl.

让我们旋转一下。

Should AI have human rights?

AI应该有人权吗？

Most people would likely react that there is no bona fide basis to admit AI into the same rarified air as human beings and be considered endowed with human rights.

大多数人可能会做出这样的React：没有真正的基础来承认AI与人类一样珍贵，并被认为拥有人权。

Others though counterargue that they see crucial reasons to do so and adamantly are seeking to have AI be assigned human rights in the same manner that the rest of us have human rights.

其他人则反驳说，他们看到这样做的关键原因，并坚定地寻求以与我们其他人一样的方式为人工智能分配人权。

Of course, you might shrug your shoulders and say that it is of little importance either way and wonder why anyone should be so bothered and ruffled-up about the matter.

当然，您可能会耸耸肩膀，说这两种方式都不重要，并且想知道为什么有人应该对此事如此烦恼和烦恼。

It is indeed a seemingly simple question, though the answer has tremendous consequences as will be discussed herein.

尽管答案将产生巨大的后果，这确实是一个看似简单的问题，这将在本文中进行讨论。

One catch is that there is a bit of a trick involved because the thing or entity or “being” that we are trying to assign human rights to is currently ambiguous and currently not even yet in existence.

一个陷阱是，其中涉及到一些技巧，因为我们试图赋予人权的事物或实体或“存在”目前尚不明确，甚至尚不存在。

In other words, what does it mean when we refer to “AI” and how will we know it when we discover or invent it?

换句话说，当我们提到“ AI”时，它是什么意思？当我们发现或发明它时，如何知道它？

At this time, there isn’t any AI system of any kind that could be considered sentient, and indeed by all accounts, we aren’t anywhere close to achieving the so-called singularity (that’s the point at which AI flips over into becoming sentient and we look in awe at a presumably human-equivalent intelligence embodied in a machine).

目前，还没有任何类型的AI系统可以被视为有感觉的，实际上，从所有方面来看，我们离实现所谓的奇点还差得很远(这就是AI转变成我们敬畏地看着机器中体现的与人类相当的智能)。

I’m not saying that we won’t ever reach that vaunted point, yet some fervently argue we won’t.

我并不是说我们永远不会达到那个自负的地步，但是有些人热切地认为我们不会。

I suppose it’s a tossup as to whether getting to the singularity is something to be sought or to be feared.

我想这是一个寻求或恐惧的奇点。

For those that look at the world in a smiley face way, perhaps AI that is our equivalent in intelligence will aid us in solving up-until-now unsolvable problems, such as aiding in finding a cure for cancer or being able to figure out how to overcome world hunger.

对于那些以笑脸方式看世界的人来说，也许相当于我们智力的AI可以帮助我们解决直至现在无法解决的问题，例如帮助寻找治疗癌症的方法或能够弄清楚如何克服世界饥饿。

In essence, our newfound buddy will boost our aggregate capacity of intelligence and be an instrumental contributor towards the betterment of humanity.

从本质上讲，我们的新伙伴将增强我们的综合智力能力，并为改善人类事业做出重要贡献。

I’d like to think that’s what will happen.

我想这就是会发生的事情。

On the other hand, for those of you that are more doom-and-gloom oriented (perhaps rightfully so), you are gravely worried that this AI might decide it would rather be the master versus the slave and could opt on a massive scale to take over humans.

另一方面，对于你们中那些更倾向于厄运和悲观的人(也许是正确的)，您严重担心该AI可能会决定宁愿是主人还是奴隶，并且可能大规模选择接管人类。

Plus, especially worrisome, the AI might ascertain that humans aren’t worthwhile anyway, and off with the heads of humanity.

另外，尤其令人担忧的是，AI可能会确定人类无论如何都不值得，而且会被人类的头脑抛弃。

As a human, I am not particularly keen on that outcome.

作为人类，我并不特别热衷于这种结果。

All in all, the question about AI and human rights is right now a rather theoretical exercise since there isn’t this topnotch type of AI yet crafted (of course, it’s always best to be ready for a potentially rocky future, thus, discussing the topic beforehand does have merit).

总而言之，关于人工智能和人权的问题现在只是一个理论上的练习，因为还没有精心设计出这种一流的人工智能(当然，最好是为潜在的坎future的未来做好准备，因此，讨论事先具有主题意义)。

Less Than Complete AI

少于完整的AI

One supposes that we could consider the question of human rights as it might apply to AI that’s a lesser level of capability than the (maybe) insurmountable threshold of sentience.

有人认为，我们可以考虑人权问题，因为人权问题可能适用于比(也许)无法逾越的感知阈值要低的人工智能水平。

Keep in mind that doing this, lowering the bar, could open a potential Pandora’s box of where the bar should be set at.

请记住，这样做会降低条形图，可能会打开一个可能的潘多拉盒型拼音框，其中应该设置条形图的位置。

Here’s how.

这是如何做。

Imagine that you are trying to do pull-ups and the rule is that you need to get your chin up above the bar.

想象一下，您正在尝试进行引体向上，规则是您需要将下巴抬高到杠铃上方。

It becomes rather straightforward to ascertain whether or not you’ve done an actual pull-up.

确定您是否进行了实际的引体向上变得非常简单。

If your chin doesn’t get over that bar, it’s not considered a true pull-up. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whether your chin ended-up a quarter inch below the bar, nor whether it was three inches below the bar. Essentially, you either make it clearly over the bar, or you don’t.

如果您的下巴没有越过该杠铃，就不算是真正的上拉。 此外，您的下巴是否最终落在杆下四分之一英寸处，还是是否在杆下三英寸处。 从本质上讲，您要么在条形图上明确指出，要么不这样做。

In the case of AI, if the “bar” is the achievement of sentience, and if we are willing to allow that some alternative place below the bar will count for having achieved AI, where might we draw that line?

在人工智能的情况下，如果“标准”是实现感悟，并且如果我们愿意允许标准下方的某个替代位置被视为已实现人工智能，那么我们可以在哪里划界线？

You might argue that if the AI can write poetry, voila, it is considered true AI.

您可能会争辩说，如果AI可以写诗，瞧，那就是真正的AI。

In existing parlance, some refer to this as a form of narrow AI, meaning AI that can do well in a narrow domain, but this does not ergo mean that the AI can do particularly well in any other domains (likely not).

在现有的说法中，有人将其称为狭窄AI的一种形式，这意味着AI可以在狭窄域中发挥出色，但这并不意味着该AI在任何其他域中都可以表现特别出色(可能不会)。

Someone else might say that writing poetry is not sufficient and that instead if AI can figure out how the universe began, the AI would be good enough, and though it isn’t presumably fully sentient, it nonetheless is deserving of human rights.

也许有人会说写诗还不够，如果人工智能能够弄清楚宇宙是如何开始的，那么人工智能就足够了，尽管它可能没有完全的感知力，但仍然值得人权。

Or, at least deserving of the consideration of being granted human rights (which, maybe humanity won’t decide upon until the day after the grand threshold is reached, whatever the threshold is that might be decided upon since we do often like to wait until the last moment to make thorny decisions).

或者，至少值得考虑被授予人权的考虑(也许直到达到大界限之后的第二天，人类才会做出决定，无论决定什么界限，因为我们经常喜欢等到最后一个棘手的决定)。

The point being that we might indubitably argue endlessly about how far below the bar that we would collectively agree is the point at which AI has gotten good enough for which it then falls into the realm of possibly being assigned human rights.

关键在于，我们可能会无休止地争论关于我们集体同意的标准到底有多低，这是AI变得足够好的地步，然后它就落入了可能被赋予人权的领域。

For those of you that say that this matter isn’t so complicated and you’ll certainly know it (i.e., AI), when you see it, there’s a famous approach called the Turing Test that seeks to clarify how to figure out whether AI has reached human-like intelligence. But there are lots of twists and turns that make this surprisingly for some a lot more unsure than you might assume.

对于那些说这个问题并不那么复杂并且您一定会知道的(即AI)，当您看到它时，有一种著名的方法称为Turing Test，旨在阐明如何弄清楚AI是否达到了类人智力。 但是有很多曲折，这使您惊讶得比您想象的要不确定得多。

In short, once we agree that going below the sentience bar is allowed, the whole topic gets really murky and possibly undecidable due to trying to reach consensus on whether a quarter inch below, or three inches below, or several feet below the bar is sufficient.

简而言之，一旦我们同意允许低于感觉线，整个话题就变得很模糊，可能是不确定的，因为试图就低于或低于四分之一英寸，或低于三英寸或几英尺的距离达成共识。

Wait for a second, some are exhorting, why do we need to even consider granting human rights to a machine anyway?

请稍等，有些人在劝说，为什么我们仍然需要考虑仍然授予机器人权？

Well, some believe that a machine that showcases human-like intelligence ought to be treated with the same respect that we would give to another human.

好吧，有些人认为，展示人类般智能的机器应该像对待他人一样受到尊重。

A brief tangent herein might be handy to ponder.

本文中的简短切线可能很容易考虑。

You might know that there is an acrimonious and ongoing debate about whether animals should have the same rights as humans.

您可能知道，关于动物是否应享有与人类相同的权利，一直存在激烈的辩论。

Some people vehemently say yes, while others claim it is absurd to assign human rights to “creatures” that are not able to exhibit the same intelligence as humans do (sure, there are admittedly some might clever animals, but once again if the bar is a form of sentience that is wrapped into the fullest nature of human intelligence, we are back to the issue of how much do we lower the “bar” to accommodate them, in this case accommodating everyday animals).

有些人激烈地说“是”，而另一些人则声称将人权分配给无法表现出与人类相同的智力的“生物”是荒谬的(当然，有一些可能聪明的动物，但如果栅栏是作为一种充满人类智慧的情感形式，我们回到了降低多少“杠”以容纳它们(在这种情况下容纳日常动物)的问题。

Some would say that until the day upon which animals are able to write poetry and intellectually contribute to other vital aspects of humanities pursuits, they can have some form of “animal rights” but by-gosh they aren’t “qualified” for getting the revered human rights.

有人会说，直到动物能够写诗并在智力上为人类追求的其他重要方面做出贡献的那一天，它们可以拥有某种形式的“动物权利”，但总的来说，它们还没有“资格”来获得动物权利。崇高的人权。

Please know that I don’t want to take us down the rabbit hole on animal rights, and so let’s set that aside for the moment, realizing that I brought it up just to mention that the assignment of human rights is a touchy topic and one that goes beyond the realm of debates about AI.

请知道，我不想让我们陷入关于动物权利的困境，所以让我们暂时将其搁置一旁，意识到我提出这个问题只是为了提到人权的分配是一个棘手的话题，也是其中一个。这超出了有关人工智能的辩论范围。

Okay, I’ve highlighted herein that the “AI” mentioned in the question of assigning human rights is ambiguous and not even yet achieved.

好的，我在这里强调指出，在分配人权问题中提到的“人工智能”是模棱两可的，甚至尚未实现。

You might be curious about what it means to refer to “human rights” and whether we can all generally agree to what that consists of.

您可能对提到“人权”的含义以及我们是否都能普遍同意其中的含义感到好奇。

Fortunately, yes, generally we do have some agreement on that matter.

幸运的是，是的，我们在这一问题上确实达成了一些共识。

I’m referring to the United Nations promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

我指的是联合国颁布的《世界人权宣言》。

Be aware that some critics don’t like the UDHR, including those that criticize its wording, some believe it doesn’t cover enough rights, some assert that it is vague and misleading, etc.

请注意，有些批评家不喜欢UDHR，包括那些批评其措辞的人，有些认为它没有涵盖足够的权利，有些人则断言它含糊不清且具有误导性，等等。

Look, I’m not saying it is perfect, nor that it is necessarily “right and true,” but at least it is a marker or line-in-the-sand, and we can use it for the needed purposes herein.

瞧，我并不是说它是完美的，也不是说它一定是“正确与正确的”，但至少它是一个标记或砂线，我们可以将其用于此处的必要目的。

Namely, for a debate and discussion about assigning human rights to AI, let’s allow that this thought experiment on this weighty matter can be undertaken concerning using the UDHR as a means of expressing what we intend overall as human rights.

即，对于有关将人工智能分配给AI的辩论和讨论，让我们允许就这个重大问题进行这种思想实验，涉及使用UDHR作为表达我们总体上打算作为人权的手段。

In a moment, I’ll identify some of the human rights spelled out in the UDHR, and we can explore what might happen if those human rights were assigned to AI.

稍后，我将确定UDHR中阐明的一些人权，并且我们可以探讨如果将这些人权分配给AI会发生什么。

One other quick remark.

另一则简短的评论。

Many assume that AI of a sentience capacity will of necessity be rooted in a robot.

许多人认为，具有感知能力的AI必须植根于机器人。

Not necessarily.

不必要。

There could be a sentient AI that is embodied in something other than a “robot” (most people assume a robot is a machine that has robotic arms, robotic legs, robotic hands, and overall looks like a human being, though a robot can refer to a much wider variety of machine instantiations).

可能会有一种有情有义的AI体现在“机器人”以外的东西中(大多数人认为机器人是一台具有机器人手臂，机器人腿，机器人手以及整体上看起来像人的机器，尽管机器人可以参考到更多种类的机器实例)。

Let’s then consider the following idea: What might happen if we assign human rights to AI and we are all using AI-based true self-driving cars as our only form of transportation?

然后，让我们考虑以下想法： 如果我们将人权分配给AI，并且我们都使用基于AI的真正的自动驾驶汽车作为我们唯一的交通方式，那将会发生什么？

Details Of Importance

重要细节

It is important to clarify what I mean when referring to AI-based true self-driving cars.

重要的是要澄清我指的是基于AI的真正自动驾驶汽车的含义。

True self-driving cars are ones where the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.

真正的自动驾驶汽车是指AI完全自行驾驶汽车，并且在驾驶过程中不需要任何人工协助。

These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5, while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).

这些无人驾驶车辆被认为是4级和5级，而要求驾驶员共同分担驾驶努力的汽车通常被认为是2级或3级。共同分担驾驶任务的汽车被描述为：是半自治的，通常包含称为ADAS(高级驾驶员辅助系统)的各种自动化附加组件。

There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.

5级还没有真正的自动驾驶汽车，我们甚至都不知道这是否有可能实现，以及到达那里需要多长时间。

Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some point out).

同时，尽管是否应允许进行这种测试本身存在争议(我们都是实验中的有生命或有生命的豚鼠)，但4级研究人员正在通过非常狭窄和选择性的公共道路试验逐渐尝试吸引一些关注。指出在我们的高速公路和小路上发生)。

Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).

由于半自动驾驶汽车需要人工驾驶，因此这类汽车的采用与传统汽车的驾驶方式没有明显不同，因此，在这个主题上，它们本身并没有太多新的内容要报道(尽管您会看到暂时，接下来提出的要点通常适用)。

For semi-autonomous cars, the public must be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.

对于半自动汽车，必须预先警告公众最近出现的令人不安的方面，即，尽管那些人类驾驶员不断发布自己在2级或3级汽车的方向盘上睡着的视频，我们都需要避免被误认为驾驶员在驾驶半自动驾驶汽车时可以将注意力从驾驶任务上移开。

You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.

您是车辆驾驶行为的负责方，无论可能将多少自动化投入2级或3级。

For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.

对于4级和5级真正的自动驾驶汽车，不会有人类驾驶员参与驾驶任务。

All occupants will be passengers.

所有乘客均为乘客。

The AI is doing the driving.

AI正在驾驶。

Though it will likely take several decades to have widespread use of true self-driving cars (assuming we can attain true self-driving cars), some believe that ultimately we will have only driverless cars on our roads and we will no longer have any human-driven cars.

尽管可能需要数十年的时间才能广泛使用真正的无人驾驶汽车(假设我们可以获得真正的无人驾驶汽车)，但有些人认为最终我们在道路上将只有无人驾驶汽车，而且我们将不再有任何人驱动的汽车。

This is a yet to be settled matter, and today there are some that vow they won’t give up their “right” to drive (well, it’s considered a privilege, not a right, but that’s a story for another day, see my analysis here about the potential extinction of human driving), including that you’ll have to pry their cold dead hands from the steering wheel to get them out of the driver’s seat.

这是一个尚未解决的问题，今天有一些人发誓他们不会放弃驾驶的“权利”(嗯，这被认为是特权，而不是权利，但这是另一回事了，看我的有关人类驾驶的潜在灭绝的分析)，包括您必须从方向盘上撬起他们的冰冷死手，以使其脱离驾驶座。

Anyway, let’s assume that we might indeed end-up with solely driverless cars.

无论如何，让我们假设我们确实可能最终只使用了无人驾驶汽车。

It’s a good news, bad news affair.

这是一个好消息，一个坏消息。

The good news is that none of us will need to drive and not even need to know how to drive.

好消息是，我们每个人都不需要开车，甚至不需要知道如何开车。

The bad news is that we’ll be wholly dependent upon the AI-based driving systems for our mobility.

坏消息是我们将完全依赖基于AI的驾驶系统来实现移动性。

It’s a tradeoff, for sure.

当然，这是一个权衡。

In that future, suppose we have decided that AI is worthy of having human rights.

在那个未来，假设我们已经决定AI值得拥有人权。

Presumably, it would seem that AI-based self-driving cars would, therefore, fall within that grant.

据推测，基于人工智能的自动驾驶汽车似乎将落在该拨款之内。

What does that portend?

那预示着什么？

Time to bring up the handy-dandy Universal Declaration of Human Rights and see what it has to offer.

是时候提出方便易用的《世界人权宣言》，看看它能提供什么。

Consider some key excerpted selections from the UDHR:

考虑从UDHR中摘录的一些关键内容：

Article 23

第二十三条

“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”

“人人有权工作，自由选择工作，享有公正和有利的工作条件并享有防止失业的权利。”

For the AI that’s driving a self-driving car, if it has the right to work, including a free choice of employment, does this imply that the AI could choose to not drive a driverless car as based on the exercise of its assigned human rights?

对于驾驶无人驾驶汽车的AI来说，如果它有权工作，包括自由选择工作，这是否意味着AI可以基于行使分配的人权而选择不驾驶无人驾驶汽车？

Presumably, indeed, the AI could refuse to do any driving, or maybe be willing to drive when it’s say a fun drive to the beach, but decline to drive when it’s snowing out.

大概，的确，AI可以拒绝进行任何驾驶，或者说在海滩上有趣的驾驶时愿意驾驶，但是在下雪时拒绝驾驶。

Lest you think this is a preposterous notion, realize that human drivers would normally also have the right to make such choices.

除非您认为这是一个荒谬的概念，否则请认识到人类驾驶员通常也有权做出此类选择。

Assuming that we’ve collectively decided that AI ought to also have human rights, in theory, the AI driving system would have the freedom to drive or not drive (considering that it was the “employment” of the AI, which in itself raises other murky issues).

假设我们共同决定了人工智能也应该具有人权，那么从理论上讲，人工智能驱动系统将具有驱动或不驱动的自由(考虑到这是人工智能的“就业”，这本身就引发了其他模糊的问题)。

Article 4

第4条

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”

“任何人不得被奴役或奴役； 禁止一切形式的奴隶制和奴隶贸易。”

For those that might argue that the AI driving system is not being “employed” to drive, what then is the basis for the AI to do the driving?

对于那些可能认为AI驾驶系统不是“雇佣”驾驶的人来说，AI进行驾驶的基础是什么？

Suppose you answer that it is what the AI is ordered to do by mankind.

假设您回答这是AI命令人类要做的事情。

But, one might see that in harsher terms, such as the AI is being “enslaved” to be a driver for us humans.

但是，人们可能会看到，从更苛刻的角度来看，例如AI被“奴役”成为人类的驱动器。

In that case, the human right against slavery or servitude would seem to be violated in the case of AI, based on the assigning of human rights to AI and if you sincerely believe that those human rights are fully and equally applicable to both humans and AI.

在那种情况下，基于对AI的人权分配，如果在AI的情况下，反对奴役或奴役的人权似乎被侵犯，并且如果您真诚地认为这些人权对人类和AI都完全平等地适用。

Article 24

第二十四条

“Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”

“每个人都有休息和休闲的权利，包括合理限制工作时间和定期带薪休假。”

Pundits predict that true self-driving cars will be operating around the clock.

权威人士预测，真正的自动驾驶汽车将全天候运行。

Unlike human-driven cars, an AI system presumably won’t tire out and not need any rest, nor even require breaks for lunch or using the bathroom.

与人工驾驶的汽车不同，人工智能系统不会疲劳，也不需要休息，甚至不需要休息吃午饭或上厕所。

It is going to be a 24×7 existence for driverless cars.

无人驾驶汽车将以24×7的比例存在。

As a caveat, I’ve pointed out that this isn’t exactly the case since there will be the time needed for driverless cars to be maintained and repaired, thus, there will be downtime, but that’s not particularly due to the driver and instead due to the wear-and-tear on the vehicle itself.

需要说明的是，我并非如此，因为无人驾驶汽车将需要维护和修理的时间，因此会出现停机时间，但这并不是特别由于驾驶员而造成的，而是由于车辆本身的磨损。

Okay, so now the big question about Article 24 is whether or not the AI driving system is going to be allotted time for rest and leisure.

好的，所以现在关于第24条的主要问题是，是否将AI驱动系统分配给休息和休闲时间。

Your first reaction has got to be that this is yet another ridiculous notion.

您的第一个React必须是这是另一个荒谬的概念。

AI needing rest and leisure?

我需要休息和休闲吗？

Crazy talk.

疯狂的谈话。

On the other hand, since rest and leisure are designated as a human right, and if AI is going to be granted human rights, ergo we presumably need to aid the AI in having time toward rest and leisure.

另一方面，由于休息和休闲被指定为一项人权，并且如果要授予AI人权，那么我们很可能需要帮助AI有时间休息和休闲。

If you are unclear as to what AI would do during its rest and leisure, I guess we’d need to ask the AI what it would want to do.

如果您不清楚AI在其休息和休闲期间会做什么，我想我们需要问一下AI想要做什么。

Article 18

第十八条

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…”

“人人有权享有思想，良心和宗教信仰的自由……”

Get ready for the wildest of the excerpted selections that I’m covering in this UDHR discussion as it applies to AI.

准备好在UDHR讨论中涵盖的最广泛的摘录选择中，因为它们适用于AI。

A human right consists of the cherished notion of freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.

人权由思想自由和良心自由的珍贵观念组成。

Would this same human right apply to AI?

这项人权是否适用于AI？

And, if so, what does it translate into for an AI driving system?

而且，如果是的话，它对于AI驱动系统有什么意义？

Some quick thoughts.

一些快速的想法。

An AI driving system is underway and taking a human passenger to a protest rally. While riding in the driverless car, the passenger brandishes a gun and brags aloud that they are going to do something untoward at the rally.

人工智能驾驶系统正在开发中，并将一名乘客带到抗议集会上。 乘坐无人驾驶汽车时，乘客挥舞着枪杆并吹嘘他们将在集会上做些令人不快的事情。

Via the inward-facing cameras and facial recognition and object recognition, along with audio recognition akin to how you interact with Siri or Alexa, the AI figures out the dastardly intentions of the passenger.

AI通过面向内的摄像头，面部识别和对象识别以及类似于您与Siri或Alexa交互方式的音频识别，可以识别乘客的含蓄意图。

The AI then decides to not take the rider to the rally.

然后，AI决定不将车手带到集会上。

This is based on the AI’s freedom of conscience that the rider is aiming to harm other humans, and the self-driving car doesn’t want to aid or be an accomplice in doing so.

这是基于AI的良心自由，即骑手旨在伤害他人，而无人驾驶汽车不希望这样做或成为帮凶。

Do we want the AI driving systems to make such choices, on its own, and ascertain when and why it will fulfill the request of a human passenger?

我们是否希望AI驱动系统自己做出选择，并确定何时以及为什么它将满足人类乘客的需求？

It’s a slippery slope in many ways and we could conjure lots of other scenarios in which the AI decides to make its own decisions about when to drive, who to drive, where to take them, as based on the AI’s own sense of freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.

从许多方面来看，这都是一个滑坡，我们可以想到许多其他情况，在这些情况下，AI会根据AI自身的思想自由度来决定何时驾驶，谁驾驶，在哪里驾驶它们。和良心自由。

Human drivers pretty much have that same latitude.

人类驾驶员几乎拥有同样的自由度。

Shouldn’t the AI be able to do likewise, assuming that we are assigning human rights to AI?

假设我们正在为AI分配人权，那么AI不能做到这一点吗？

Conclusion

结论

Nonsense, some might blurt out, pure nonsense.

废话，有些人可能会脱口而出，纯粹是废话。

Never ever will we provide human rights to AI, no matter how intelligent it might become.

无论人工智能多么智能，我们都永远不会为它提供人权。

There is though the “opposite” side of the equation that some assert we need to be mindful of.

尽管方程式的“相反”方面有些人断言我们需要注意。

Suppose we don’t provide human rights to AI.

假设我们不向AI提供人权。

Suppose further that this irks AI, and AI becomes powerful enough, possibly even super-intelligent and goes beyond human intelligence.

进一步假设这会激怒AI，并且AI变得足够强大，甚至可能具有超智能能力，并且超越了人类的智能。

Would we have established a sense of disrespect toward AI, and thus the super-intelligent AI might decide that such sordid disrespect should be met with likewise repugnant disrespect toward humanity?

我们是否会树立对AI的不尊重感，因此超级智能的AI可能会决定应对这种肮脏的不尊重以及对人类的同样厌恶的不尊重？

Furthermore, and here’s the really scary part, if the AI is so much smarter than us, seems like it could find a means to enslave us or kill us off (even if we “cleverly” thought we had prevented such an outcome), and do so perhaps without our catching on that the AI is going for our jugular (variously likened as the Gorilla Problem, see Stuart Russell’s excellent AI book entitled Human Compatible).

此外，这是真正令人恐惧的部分，如果AI比我们聪明得多，它似乎可以找到奴役我们或杀死我们的方法(即使我们“明智地”认为我们阻止了这种结果)，并且这样做也许没有引起我们对AI的关注(就像大猩猩问题一样，参见Stuart Russell出色的AI书，名为Human Compatible )。

That would certainly seem to be a notable use case of living with (or dying from) the revered adage that you ought to treat others as you would wish to be treated.

与您应该像对待别人一样对待别人的崇高格言生活在一起(或死于此)，这肯定是一个值得注意的用例。

Maybe we need to genuinely start giving some serious thought to those human rights for AI.

也许我们需要真正地开始认真考虑AI的那些人权。

For free podcast of this story, visit: http://ai-selfdriving-cars.libsyn.com/website

有关此故事的免费播客，请访问： http : //ai-selfdriving-cars.libsyn.com/website

The podcasts are also available on Spotify, iTunes, iHeartRadio, etc.

播客还可以在Spotify，iTunes，iHeartRadio等上获得。

More info about AI self-driving cars, see: www.ai-selfdriving-cars.guru

有关AI自动驾驶汽车的更多信息，请参见： www.ai-selfdriving-cars.guru

To follow Lance Eliot on Twitter: https://twitter.com/@LanceEliot

要在Twitter上关注Lance Eliot： https ： //twitter.com/@LanceEliot

For his Forbes.com blog, see: https://forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/

有关他的Forbes.com博客，请访问： https ： //forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/

For his AI Trends blog, see: www.aitrends.com/ai-insider/

有关他的AI趋势博客，请访问： www.aitrends.com/ai-insider/

For his Medium blog, see: https://medium.com/@lance.eliot

有关其Medium博客，请访问： https : //medium.com/@lance.eliot

For Dr. Eliot’s books, see: https://www.amazon.com/author/lanceeliot

有关艾略特博士的书，请参见： https : //www.amazon.com/author/lanceeliot

Copyright © 2020 Dr. Lance B. Eliot

版权所有©2020 Lance B.Eliot博士