Musk, killer robots, Trump, the Eclipse

By Bob Gaydos

Melania uses the recommended glasses to view
 the eclipse while her husband goes with the naked eye. 

Elon Musk and Donald Trump made significant scientific statements on the same day in August. Digest that sentence for a second. …

OK, it’s not as strange as it sounds because each man was true to himself. That is, neither message was surprising, considering the source, but each was important, also considering the source.

Musk and 115 other prominent scientists in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence attending a conference in Melbourne, Australia, delivered a letter to the United Nations urging a ban on development and use of killer robots. This is not science fiction.

Responding to previous urging by members of the group of AI and robotics specialists, the UN had recently voted to hold formal discussions on so-called autonomous weapons. With their open letter, Musk and the others, coming from 26 countries, wanted the UN to be clear about their position -- these are uniquely dangerous weapons and not so far off in the future.

Also on the same Monday, on the other side of the planet, as millions of Americans, equipped with special glasses or cardboard box viewers,  marveled at the rare site of a solar eclipse, Trump, accompanied by his wife, Melania, and their son, Barron, walked out onto a balcony at the White House and stared directly at the sun. No glasses. No cardboard box. No problem. I’m Trump. Watch me give the middle finger to science.

Of course, the only reason Trump shows up in the same sentence as Musk in a scientific discussion is that the man with the orange hair holds the title of president of the United States and, as such, has the power to decide what kind of weapons this nation employs and when to use them. Also, the president -- any president -- has the power, through words and actions, to exert profound influence on the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of people used to looking to the holder of the office to set an example. Hey, if it’s good enough for the president, it’s good enough for me. This is science fiction.

Please, fellow Americans, don’t stare at the sun during the next eclipse.

Trump’s disdain for science (for knowledge of any kind, really) and his apparently pathological need to do the opposite of what more knowledgeable people recommend, regardless of the topic, are a dangerous combination. When you’re talking about killer robots, it's a potentially deadly one.

How deadly? Here’s a quote from the letter the AI specialists wrote: “Once developed, lethal autonomous weapons will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend. These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways.

“We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.”

In fact, it’s already opened. On the Korean peninsula -- brimming with diplomatic tension, the rattling of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans and the corresponding threats of “fire and fury” from Trump -- a fixed-place sentry gun, reportedly capable of firing autonomously, is in place along the South Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone.

Developed by Samsung for South Korea, the gun reportedly has an autonomous system capable of surveillance up to two miles, voice-recognition, tracking and firing with mounted machine gun or grenade launcher. There is disagreement over whether the weapon is actually deployed to operate on its own, but it can. Currently, the gun and other autonomous weapons being developed by the U.S., Russia, Germany, China, the United Kingdom and others require a human to approve their actions, but usually in a split-second decision. There is little time to weigh the consequences and the human will likely assume the robot is correct rather than risk the consequences of an incorrect second-guess.

But it is precisely the removal of the human element from warfare that Musk and the other AI developers are worried about. Removing the calculation of deaths on “our side” makes deciding to use a killer robot against humans on the other side much easier. Too easy perhaps. And robots that can actually make that decision remove the human factor entirely. A machine will not agonize over causing the deaths of thousands of “enemies.”

And make no mistake, the robots will be used to kill humans as well as destroy enemy machines. Imagine a commander-in-chief who talks cavalierly about using nuclear weapons against a nation also being able to deploy robots that will think for themselves about who and what to attack. No second-guessing generals.

Musk, a pioneer in the AI field, has also been consistent with regard to his respect for the potential danger posed to humans by machines that think for themselves or by intelligences -- artificial or otherwise -- that are infinitely superior to ours. The Tesla CEO has regularly spoken out, for example, against earthlings sending messages into space to try to contact other societies, lest they deploy their technology to destroy us. One may take issue with him on solar energy, space exploration, driverless cars, but one dismisses his warnings on killer robots at one’s own risk. He knows whereof he speaks.

Trump is another matter. His showboating stunt of a brief look at the sun, sans glasses, will probably not harm his eyes. But the image lingers and the warnings, including one from his own daughter, Ivanka, were explicit: Staring directly at the sun during the eclipse can damage your retina and damage your vision. Considering the blind faith some of his followers display in his words and actions, it was yet another incredibly irresponsible display of ego and another insult to science.

Artificial intelligence is not going away. It has the potential for enormous benefit. If you want an example of its effect on daily life just look at the impact autonomous computer programs have on the financial markets. Having weapons that can think for themselves may also sound like a good idea, especially when a commander-in-chief displays erratic judgment, but their own creators -- and several human rights groups -- urge the U.N. to ban their use as weapons, in the same way chemical weapons and land mines are banned.

It may be one of the few remaining autonomous decisions humans can make in this area, and the most important one. We dare not wait until the next eclipse to make it.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Francis: The pope of hope

Pope Francis ... the smiling pope

By Bob Gaydos

Reflecting on the anger, bitterness and violence that punctuated much of the year just past, I resolved to start the new year with acknowledgment of some positive development. Some sign of hope, as it were. I found it in, of all places, the Catholic Church. Or rather, the Vatican.

Actually, to be specific, in the Pope.

         Pope Francis, the people’s pope, has been a revelation and a one-man revolution within an organization

that has been entrenched in dogma and shielded by ceremony for centuries.

Since his surprise election to the papacy nearly two years ago,

the Argentinian prelate has seemed to revel in speaking and acting like a,

well, like a man of God. A least what my definition of such a person would be:

Humble, unassuming, honest, approachable, compassionate, non-

judgmental, empathetic and realistic.

         Francis, the 266th pope, brought a positive note to the end of a brutally

negative 2014 by: (1) Convincing President Obama and Cuban President Raul

Castro to reestablish normal diplomatic relations between the United States and

Cuba, ending more than 50 years of pretending they weren’t neighbors; (2)

announcing that the Catholic Church would be committed to fighting global

warming. Diplomacy and science have not exactly been prominent issues for

popes for some time.

        These actions came at the end of a year in which Francis consistently and

passionately criticized the culture of greed that has claimed much of the planet,

resulting in the very rich getting even richer and much of the rest of the

population struggling to simply exist. “The excluded are still waiting’” he has

said of the false promise of “trickle-down” economics.

To top it off, in case no one was paying attention, Francis, who has shunned

many of the papal trappings, used his Christmas address to the cardinals at the

Vatican to scold them for their personal ambition, pettiness and attitude of

superiority to the people they, in fact, are sworn to serve. In other words, time

to change your focus, fellas.

Along the way, indicating that the Catholic Church is not, as some

have suggested, totally anti-science, he has declared that the theories of evolution

and the Big Bang are, indeed, real, and can co-exist with the Church’s teaching

of Creation. “God is not a magician with a magic wand,” he has said.

          He has also encouraged cardinals to be less-obsessed with birth control

and homosexualty (“Who am I to judge?”) and more committed to helping the

world’s poor. And he has moved decisively to remove more of the stain of sexual

abuse by priests that has been the most dominant issue associated with

the Church for several decades.

All of this has angered conservative Catholics and especially conservative

politicians who have counted on implicit papal endorsement for their views

(especially on social issues) for many years. Suddenly, the pope’s infallibility

on how we should treat each other and the planet we share is open to, not just

question, but outright challenge. Fox News is apoplectic.

So be it. As a leader with no armies, the Roman Catholic pope

can sway millions simply with his words and actions. Yes, the church is wealthy.

Yes, it has political influence. Yes, it has an investment in repairing its soiled

image and attracting new followers to replace those who left it because of the

priest sexual abuse scandal.

        Still, whatever one’s religious views, I believe that sometimes a person comes

along and takes everyone by surprise by doing the unexpected. In Francis’ case,

by acting like a humble servant of his God, rather than like the exalted ruler of

some chosen group of people. Given the symbolic power of the position, this

is huge.

I am sure the former cardinal from Argentina -- a supposedly safe,

compromise choice -- has many cardinals shaking their heads today and

wondering, “Tell me again; why did we vote for him?”

        And that may be the most positive thing of all about Pope Francis. He

has begun a discussion within the Vatican, within the Catholic Church and, by

his involvement in global issues, throughout the world, on what our role is in

relation to each other. It may be a discussion that will reveal the hypocrisy

and greed that permeate today’s society. Perhaps it will even

answer the question of what it means to be thy brother’s keeper.  

That’s pretty hopeful stuff to me.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com