Connect with us

Sin categoría

Killer Robots Aren’t Regulated. Yet.

Published

on


I love that I can unlock my phone with my face, and that Google can predict what I’m thinking. And that Amazon knows exactly what I need. It’s great that I don’t have to hail a cab or go to the grocery store. Actually, I hope I never have to drive again or navigate or use cash or clean or cook or work or learn. But what if all this technology was trying to kill me? The same technology that is making your life easier is being weaponized. That feature that unlocks your phone with your face, here it is attached to a self-learning machine gun. It’s manufacturer, Kalashnikov, made this video to show the gun using object-recognition software to identify targets. They say it gets more accurate the more you use it. That drone advertised to get awesome snowboarding shots, here’s one that doesn’t require a pilot. This ad shows it with a high-explosive warhead. It hangs out in the sky, until it finds an enemy radar system, then crashes headfirst into it. Oh, and that driverless car you thought was so cool, well, here it is in tank form at a Russian arms fair. It’s called the T-14. Dmitry, here, says he sells them to the Russian government. That contract is part of a trend that’s changing the way wars are waged. Like all good stories, this one starts at a Russian arms fair. We’re a few hours outside of Moscow. Everyone from government officials to gun enthusiasts have come here to see the latest weapons. It’s a family affair. Buyers want to know how the 21st-century technology boom can give their armies a strategic advantage. They want to know: Can technology make war safer? But some fear giving weapons too much power because it brings us closer to machines that could go out and kill on their own. They say, we might not be able to control weapons like these, weapons loaded with artificial intelligence. “So artificial intelligence is a study of how to make machines behave intelligently, which means acting in a way that will achieve the objectives that they’ve been given. And recently, I’ve become concerned about the use of A.I. to kill people.” Stuart Russell. He was an early pioneer in artificial intelligence. He’s also been warning people about its potential danger for years. “So a killer robot is something that locates, selects and attacks human targets.” Stuart isn’t so worried about robots like this. We’re still pretty far from the “Terminator.” But Stuart says we’re not as far from something like this bee-sized drone. He imagined one, and made a movie that he hopes will freak you out. In Stuart’s movie, we see swarms of them armed with explosives set loose on their targets. “The main issue is you’re creating a class of weapons of mass destruction, which can kill millions of people, just like a nuclear weapon. But in fact, it’s much easier to build, much cheaper, much more scalable, in that you can use 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000. Whereas with a nuclear weapon, it’s sort of all or nothing. It doesn’t destroy the city and the country that you’re attacking. It just kills all the people you want to kill, all males between 12 and 60 or all males wearing a yarmulke in Israel.” The weapon Stuart is describing is terrifying, if it works perfectly. With the current state of tech, many experts say it wouldn’t, but that could be even scarier. “The way we think about A.I. is we build a machine and we put the objective into the machine. And the machine pursues the objective. So you put in the objective of ‘find a cure for cancer as quickly as possible.’ Sounds great, right? O.K. Well, probably the fastest way to do that is to induce tumors in the entire human population, and then try millions of different treatments simultaneously. Then, that’s the quickest way to find a cure. That’s not what you meant, but that’s what you asked for. So we call this the King Midas Problem. King Midas said, ‘I want everything I touch to turn to gold.’ And he got his wish. And the, his food turned to gold, and his drink turned to gold and his family turned to gold. He died in misery and starvation. You know, this is a very old story. We are unable to correctly specify the objective.” Machines will always be limited by the minds of those who made them. We aren’t perfect. And neither is our A.I. Facial recognition software has had trouble with dark skin. Self-driving vehicles still need good weather and calm streets to work safely. We don’t know how long it will take for researchers to create weapons with that kind of flexibility. But behind closed doors, defense labs are working on it and they’re not working alone. “Militaries don’t have to invent A.I. It’s already being built — it’s being driven by major tech companies out in the commercial sector.” Paul Scharre, here, led a Department of Defense working group that helped establish D.O.D. policies on A.I. and weapons systems for the U.S. military. “The reality is all of the technology to put this together, to build weapons that can go out on the road, make their own decisions to kill human beings, exists today.” But it’s one thing to assemble a weapon in a lab, and another to have it work in any environment. And war is messy. “Machines are not really at a point today where they’re capable of flexibly adapting to novel situations. And that’s a major vulnerability in war.” Governments around the world see potential advantages in these weapons. After all, human soldiers — they get tired, emotional. They miss targets. Humans get traumatized. Machines do not. They can react at machine speed. If a missile was coming at you, how quickly would you want to know? Autonomous weapons could save lives. “The same technology that will help self-driving cars avoid pedestrians could be used to target civilians or avoid them, intentionally.” The problem is we’ve gotten this wrong before. “To really understand the growing trends of automation in weapons that have been growing for decades, you have to go all the way back to the American Civil War, to the Gatling Gun. How do I describe a Gatling Gun? Do I have to describe it? Could you guys show a picture of it? Richard Gatling was looking at all of the horrors that were coming back from the Civil War. And he wanted to find a way to make war more humane, to reduce the number of people that are needed on the battlefield. Wouldn’t that be amazing?” Four people operating Gatling’s gun could fire the equivalent of 100 soldiers. Far less people would be needed on the battlefield. It was the precursor to the machine gun. And it was born with the intention to save lives, at least for the army that had the gun. Of course — “The reality was far, far different. Gatling’s invention had the very opposite effect of what he intended. And then it magnified the killing and destruction on the battlefield, by orders of magnitude.” Gatling was wrong. Automating weapons didn’t save lives. And Dmitry, here, is saying something eerily familiar over 150 years later. And it wasn’t just Gatling. Revolutions of warfare have typically not gone well. “Before we ever developed usable biological weapons, the biologists said, stop doing this.” “All civilized countries today have given up chemical weapons as tools of warfare, but we see that they are still used by some rogue nations.” And then, there are nuclear weapons. Even with multiple treaties in place to police their use, the threat of nuclear obliteration remains a global anxiety. “Now, I am become death, a destroyer of worlds.” “Early in the war in Afghanistan, I was part of a Ranger sniper team that was sent out to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to watch infiltration routes for foreign fighters coming across the border. We drove all night, and then began to hike up a steep rocky mountain under cover of darkness. From our position on the ridgeline, we could see for dozens of miles in every direction. And by the time the sun came up, we looked down at this compound beneath us. We were basically in someone’s backyard. We were certain that people would be coming to take a closer look at us. What I didn’t anticipate was that they sent a little girl to scout out our position. She wasn’t particularly sneaky, to be honest. She was reporting back our position, and probably how many of us there were. We watched her and she watched us. And then, she left. And pretty soon after, the Taliban fighters came. The gunfight that ensued brought out the whole village. And we knew that many, many more fighters would be coming before long. So we had to leave that position as we were compromised. Later on in the day, we talked about what would we do in a similar situation to that? You know, one of the things that never came up was the idea of shooting this little girl. But here’s the thing: She was a valid enemy combatant, and killing her would’ve been lawful. So if someone deployed an autonomous weapon, a robot that was designed to perfectly follow the laws of war, it would’ve killed this little girl in that situation. Now, I think that would’ve been wrong, maybe not legally, but morally. But how would a robot know the difference between what’s legal and what’s right?” With so much at stake, you’d think a debate would be happening. Well, there is. It’s just that technology moves at a different pace than diplomacy. “We will continue our discussion on Agenda Item 6A, characterisation of the systems under consideration in order to promote a common understanding on concepts and characteristics relevant to the objectives and purposes of the convention.” “One of the things I learned very quickly was that the official proceedings at the United Nations appear to be completely meaningless.” “Thank you, Mr. Chairperson —” “Support continued deliberations —” “We need a normative framework —” “Difference in interpretation —” “The importance of a multi-disciplinary —” “Down the rabbit hole of endless discussions on a subject of —” “Thank you, Mr. President. We are not in a position to make a declaration right now.” “Good morning.” “How are you?” “I’m good. How are you feeling?” “Oh, I’m fine, except for the governments, you know, their do-nothing attitude.” “We’d like to hear about that.” Jody Williams, here, won a Nobel Peace Prize for her work banning land mines. Now, she’s part of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. “Academics attacked the campaign in the beginning years, you know, saying robotics and A.I. are inevitable. Maybe they are, but applying them to killing human beings on their own is not inevitable, unless you do nothing. And we refuse to do nothing.” Today, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is staging a protest outside of the U.N. The group is made up of activists, nonprofits, and civil society organizations. The campaign’s goal? A ban on all weapons that can target and kill on their own. So far, 30 countries have joined them in supporting a ban, as well as 100 nongovernmental organizations, the European Parliament, 21 Nobel laureates, and leading scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Noam Chomsky and Elon Musk, as well as Stuart Russell, and more than 4,500 other A.I. researchers. Protester: “Everyone, you can get up now.” “Yay.” [cheering] Jody’s here with Mary Wareham. “So this is the sixth time that governments have come together since 2014 to talk about what they call lethal autonomous weapons systems.” We’re going to apologize in advance for the obtuse use of acronyms in this portion of the video. “We’re not trying to prohibit the use of artificial intelligence. You know, it can be beneficial to humanity. We’re pro-robots. We’re just anti-killer robots, anti-fully autonomous weapons.” “The C.C.W., the forum of the Convention for Conventional Weapons, — which actually has a name this long, and I can never remember it — operates by consensus. Which means you either negotiate the lowest common denominator, which means doing pretty much nothing, or if the entire room of diplomats wants to move forward with a treaty, for example, and one state says no, then it goes nowhere. And that’s really a dictatorship by one.” “Once a bullet leaves a gun, the rifleman ceases to have control over that bullet. Autonomy is a way of extending human control beyond the time a munition is deployed.” That’s the United States arguing that A.I. will save lives. And remember, without their support, any kind of regulation can’t move forward. “Using algorithm and software to determine and engage target reduces people to objects.” “In the U.S. perspective, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about manually operating a weapon system, as opposed to operating it with an autonomous function.” The United States isn’t alone. The countries working hardest to build autonomous weapons insist we can’t regulate what doesn’t exist yet. And at the same time, their militaries are developing these weapons right now. “The line between a semi-autonomous weapon that has a human in control, and a fully autonomous weapon could simply be a software patch.” “Indeed, some may say it is similar to trying to discuss the internet in the ’80s, ’70s, ’60s at this stage.” “It is not necessary or desirable at this time, to define laws.” “This so-called difficulty of definitions continues to be willful obfuscation.” The truth is, whether they exist or not just depends on how you define them. We don’t have weapons with artificial general intelligence or A.I. that’s as smart as humans. But we do already have weapons that can use A.I. to search, select and engage targets in specific situations. And the technology is only getting better. “So it could easily take another 10 years before they even agree on a definition of what an autonomous weapon is. And by that time, it will be too late. I think for some countries, that’s the point.” In the ongoing race between technology and diplomacy, technology is winning because in this race, the dual-use nature of technology means software being designed to make your life easier clearly has military applications. “The A.I. community, myself included, we were sort of asleep at the wheel for a long time. And we weren’t really thinking about the ways that it could be misused.” Whether we like it or not, we’ve entered the age of the algorithm. And A.I. is changing our place on the battlefield. Is it possible the next generation of soldiers won’t have to kill? “Look, it’s an appealing idea that, someday, robots will just fight other robots and no one will get hurt. I don’t think that’s realistic.” “Unfortunately, if it worked like that, we could just say, ‘Well, why don’t we just play baseball and decide who wins or Tiddlywinks?’ No country is going to surrender until the costs that they’ve incurred are unbearable. So even if your robots are defeated, the next stage is that their robots will start killing your people.” “Because the unfortunate reality is that wars will only end when people die.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sin categoría

All About Ant Team, the Subsequent Large Tech I.P.O.

Published

on


One among China’s maximum influential tech firms, the web finance titan Ant Team, is poised to elevate a boatload of money by means of promoting stocks.

The sale places any other stamp on China’s significance as a virtual powerhouse. However it additionally displays how the tech international is fracturing.

The corporate may well be price greater than many world banks after its percentage sale, but its industry is extremely concentrated in only one nation: China. As an alternative of checklist in New York, as many different Chinese language web firms have finished, Ant goes public in Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Right here’s what to understand in regards to the corporate and its preliminary public providing.

Across the flip of the millennium, the web was once a lawless frontier, now not least in China. On-line buying groceries was once a bet. Purchasing and promoting happened in large part between strangers. No person may well be certain they weren’t being defrauded.

Alibaba, the Chinese language e-commerce team, had an concept for cultivating agree with. In 2003, it created a provider referred to as Alipay that held directly to bills till consumers showed that they have been glad with their purchases. If the pieces have been faux or by no means arrived, the cash was once refunded.

Alipay helped Alibaba’s bazaars take off. Jack Ma, Alibaba’s co-founder, spun the provider out in 2011 as a separate corporate, environment off a tiff with Yahoo, which was once then a big Alibaba investor.

Nowadays, Alibaba owns a one-third stake in Ant. Mr. Ma is Ant’s controlling shareholder, regardless that he isn’t a part of its control.

Ant’s govt chairman, Eric Jing, and leader govt, Simon Hu, each labored for years in Alibaba’s orbit. Ant has 16,660 staff.

When other folks throughout China wish to pay for one thing, they don’t achieve for his or her wallets. They seize their telephones.

With Alipay and any other smartphone app, the social platform WeChat, exchanging cash is an issue of scanning a QR code — at an in-person cashier, all over checkout at a web based retailer or face-to-face with a chum. Retail outlets and eating places nonetheless settle for money, regardless that regularly begrudgingly.

Through the years, Alipay has come to host different services and products, too. Other people in China use it to buy on credit score — no plastic card required. They take out small loans, make investments their financial savings and purchase well being and existence insurance coverage. Charges from the ones companies accounted for greater than part of Ant’s earnings remaining yr.

Alipay has greater than 730 million per month customers, greater than two times the inhabitants of america. By means of comparability, PayPal has 346 million energetic accounts.

Ant treated greater than $17 trillion in virtual bills in mainland China all over the 12 months that led to June. PayPal says its general cost quantity in 2019 was once $712 billion. Ant additionally enabled round $300 billion in credit score to shoppers and small companies.

When the corporate is going public, it may well be valued round $310 billion. That may make it price about up to JPMorgan Chase, and a lot more than Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

Alipay isn’t any slouch technologically, both. Ant says its methods processed 459,000 bills a 2d on the height of a Chinese language buying groceries vacation remaining yr. Visa, in contrast, says it will probably take care of 65,000 transactions a 2d.

Ant is very large now not most effective as a result of China’s inhabitants is very large. Its enlargement was once additionally helped by means of the truth that China had in the past been up to now at the back of in virtual finance. Few other folks had bank cards. The large government-run banks have been sluggish to modernize.

Round 95 p.c of Ant’s earnings remaining yr got here from mainland China. The corporate has invested in Paytm, an Indian cost app, and bought EyeVerify, a start-up in Kansas Town, Mo., that makes biometric authentication era. However for now a minimum of, Alipay turns out not going to implant itself so deeply out of the country’s monetary machine.

Even in China, the federal government is cautious about fast-growing monetary merchandise. The Communist Birthday celebration has clamped down on lending fraud and questionable funding schemes. Regulators have additionally criticized Ant for now not adequately protective customers’ private information.

The truth that Ant has survived for goodbye in China beneath regulatory power approach it is going to most certainly proceed running round regardless of the government throw at it, mentioned Kevin Kwek, an analyst with the analysis company Bernstein.

“In the event you’re going to promote the rest to shoppers that’s monetary services and products, the regulators must scrutinize it,” he mentioned. “I don’t assume they’re looking for tactics to kill Ant.”



Supply hyperlink

Continue Reading

Sin categoría

Ant Crew Set to Lift $34 Billion in Global’s Greatest I.P.O.

Published

on


Ant Crew, the Chinese language monetary era titan, is ready to lift round $34 billion when its stocks start buying and selling in Hong Kong and Shanghai within the coming weeks, which might make its preliminary public providing the most important on report.

The corporate, the mum or dad of the Alipay cell cost carrier, priced its stocks round $10.30 apiece, in line with paperwork launched on Monday by means of inventory exchanges within the two towns. At that worth, the corporate can be price round $310 billion, a marketplace worth similar to that of JPMorgan Chase and greater than that of many different international banks.

The cash Ant raises would surpass the $29.four billion that Saudi Arabia’s state-run oil corporate, Saudi Aramco, raised when it went public final yr. Ant’s list would even be better than that of its sister corporate, the Chinese language e-commerce large Alibaba, which raised $25 billion when its stocks began buying and selling at the New York Inventory Alternate in 2014.

For masses of thousands and thousands of other people in China, Alipay would possibly as smartly be a financial institution. It’s their bank card, debit card, mutual fund or even insurance coverage dealer — all on a unmarried cell platform. This is a lender to small companies, each on-line and rancid, that would possibly in a different way be disregarded by means of China’s giant state-run banks. Alipay has greater than 730 million per 30 days customers, greater than two times the inhabitants of the USA. Through comparability, PayPal has 346 million lively accounts.

Like different large web corporations, Ant says its power lies in acting a lot of other duties directly. The extra other people use Alipay to buy lattes, as an example, the extra knowledge it gathers about their spending energy. Ant says this knowledge is helping it be offering loans, investments and insurance coverage insurance policies that swimsuit customers’ wishes. The knowledge additionally is helping Ant and its spouse banks decide who’s more likely to pay them again.

But the melding of finance and tech is attracting regulators’ pastime far and wide, and Ant has now not been spared the scrutiny. In recent times, China has clamped down laborious on fishy on-line lending and making an investment schemes. Regulatory pressures have led Ant to mood its ambitions in positive spaces because it was once spun off from Alibaba in 2011.

Lately, the corporate emphasizes that Alipay is simply the entrance door wherein its customers acquire get right of entry to to monetary products and services. The lending and making an investment are nonetheless most commonly accomplished by means of established establishments — a message that was once crystallized when the corporate, which was once known as Ant Monetary, dropped the second one phrase from its English title this yr.

Closing yr, Ant earned $2.7 billion in benefit on $18 billion in income. It says it treated $17 trillion in virtual bills in mainland China throughout the 12 months that led to June.



Supply hyperlink

Continue Reading

Sin categoría

Colleges Clamored for Seesaw. That Was once the Just right Information, and the Unhealthy Information.

Published

on


And it’s been a yr. In February, Mr. Sjogreen was once mapping out long-term initiatives from Seesaw’s downtown San Francisco workplace. Come March, he was once running from his Noe Valley area, juggling home-school tasks for his 9- and 12-year-old youngsters, identical to most of the staff, and Seesaw was once in “rapid-response mode,” as he put it.

Lecturers like Sharmeen Moosa, a first-grade trainer at a global college in Bahrain, determined Seesaw could be their remote-learning platform.

“Previous to Covid, I used it as only a virtual portfolio for children,” an internet choice of their drawings and recordings, Ms. Moosa mentioned, but if her college closed in February, her use “remodeled vastly.” She used the app for morning messages and day by day courses, including audio or video clips, posting further assets, and developing scholar assignments along side speaking with households.

Many different academics used the app in an identical techniques, exposing shortfalls that the corporate needed to race to mend.

The app, designed to paintings with iPads and Chromebooks, had hardly ever been used with Android pills. However now oldsters have been going online with Amazon Fireplace or Samsung units operating Android. A large number of scholars didn’t have e-mail addresses and wanted a unique option to log in from domestic. Lecturers, who may just not glance over scholars’ shoulders whilst they labored on an project, sought after to touch upon stored drafts sooner than scholars submitted a last model. Notification delays grew from a few seconds to hours. The corporate’s servers every so often slowed to a move slowly.

The ones problems supposed academics, households and colleges all fired questions at Seesaw for lend a hand. Mr. Sjogreen, who prided himself on getting again to shoppers nearly in an instant, discovered that simply wasn’t conceivable.

“I’m unhappy that throughout a time the place they have been so wired, we weren’t as responsive as we wish to be,” he mentioned.



Supply hyperlink

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.