scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
Stuart Russell

AbstractA long tradition in philosophy and economics equates intelligence with the ability to act rationally—that is, to choose actions that can be expected to achieve one’s objectives. This framework is so pervasive within AI that it would be reasonable to call it the standard model. A great deal of progress on reasoning, planning, and decision-making, as well as perception and learning, has occurred within the standard model. Unfortunately, the standard model is unworkable as a foundation for further progress because it is seldom possible to specify objectives completely and correctly in the real world. The chapter proposes a new model for AI development in which the machine’s uncertainty about the true objective leads to qualitatively new modes of behavior that are more robust, controllable, and deferential to humans.

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-23
Author(s):  
Stuart Russell

Following the analysis given by Alan Turing in 1951, one must expect that AI capabilities will eventually exceed those of humans across a wide range of real-world-decision making scenarios. Should this be a cause for concern, as Turing, Hawking, and others have suggested? And, if so, what can we do about it? While some in the mainstream AI community dismiss the issue, I will argue that the problem is real: we have to work out how to design AI systems that are far more powerful than ourselves while ensuring that they never have power over us. I believe the technical aspects of this problem are solvable. Whereas the standard model of AI proposes to build machines that optimize known, exogenously specified objectives, a preferable approach would be to build machines that are of provable benefit to humans. I introduce assistance games as a formal class of problems whose solution, under certain assumptions, has the desired property.


Acquaintance ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 145-168
Author(s):  
Tom Stoneham

Dreams are often defined as sleeping experiences with phenomenal character similar to perceptions of the real world. Hence they pose a prima facie challenge to accounts of phenomenal character in terms of acquaintance relations. One response is disjunctivist: to give a different account of their phenomenal character from that of successful perceivings. I argue that, given the alleged frequency of dreaming on the standard model, this disjunctivist approach weakens the explanatory value of the acquaintance account of the phenomenal character of successful perceivings. Another response is to follow Malcolm and Dennett in denying that dreaming has phenomenal character at all. I present a cultural-social model of dreams and argue that we lack theory-neutral evidence of the phenomenal character of dreams and thus it is legitimate to choose between theories of dreaming on the basis of their fit with our best theory of the phenomenal character of successful perceivings, namely acquaintance.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1275-1306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Hunter

The various feminist judgment projects (FJPs) have explored through the imagined rewriting of judgments a range of ways in which a feminist perspective may be applied to the practice of judging. But how do these imagined judgments compare to what actual feminist judges do? This article presents the results of the author’s empirical research to date on ‘real world’ feminist judging. Drawing on case study and interview data it explores the how, when and where of feminist judging, that is, the feminist resources, tools and techniques judges have drawn upon, the stages in the hearing and decision-making process at which these resources, tools and techniques have been deployed, and the areas of law in which they have been applied. The article goes on to consider observed and potential limits on feminist judicial practice, before drawing conclusions about the comparison between ‘real world’ feminist judging and the practices of FJPs. Los proyectos de sentencias feministas, a través de la reelaboración imaginaria de sentencias judiciales, han explorado multitud de vías en las que las perspectivas feministas se podrían aplicar a la práctica judicial. Pero ¿qué resulta de la comparación entre dichas sentencias y la práctica real de las juezas feministas? Este artículo presenta los resultados de la investigación empírica de la autora. Se analiza el cómo, el cuándo y el dónde de la labor judicial feminista, es decir, los recursos, herramientas y técnicas feministas que las juezas han utilizado, las fases de audiencia y toma de decisión en las que se han utilizado y las áreas del derecho en que se han aplicado. Además, se toman en consideración los límites observados y potenciales de la práctica judicial feminista, y se extraen conclusiones sobre la comparación entre la labor judicial feminista en el “mundo real” y la práctica de los proyectos de tribunales feministas.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon P. James ◽  

In many cases, rivers, mountains, forests, and other so-called natural entities have value for us because they contribute to our well-being. According to the standard model of such value, they have instrumental or “service” value for us on account of their causal powers. That model tends, however, to come up short when applied to cases when nature contributes to our well-being by virtue of the religious, political, historical, personal, or mythic meanings it bears. To make sense of such cases, a new model of nature’s value is needed, one that registers the fact that nature can have constitutive value for us on account of the role it plays in certain meaningful wholes, such as a person’s sense of who he or she is.


Author(s):  
Pallavi Jain ◽  
Krzysztof Sornat ◽  
Nimrod Talmon

Participatory budgeting systems allow city residents to jointly decide on projects they wish to fund using public money, by letting residents vote on such projects. While participatory budgeting is gaining popularity, existing aggregation methods do not take into account the natural possibility of project interactions, such as substitution and complementarity effects. Here we take a step towards fixing this issue: First, we augment the standard model of participatory budgeting by introducing a partition over the projects and model the type and extent of project interactions within each part using certain functions. We study the computational complexity of finding bundles that maximize voter utility, as defined with respect to such functions. Motivated by the desire to incorporate project interactions in real-world participatory budgeting systems, we identify certain cases that admit efficient aggregation in the presence of such project interactions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianfeng Zhang ◽  
Xian‐Sheng Hua ◽  
Jianqiang Huang ◽  
Xu Shen ◽  
Jingyuan Chen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Leandro Chambrone ◽  
Luiz Armando Chambrone ◽  
Manuel De la Rosa-Garza ◽  
Marco Antonio Serna Gonzalez ◽  
Gerardo Guzman Pérez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document