W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > July 2015

Definition of AI 'Weapons'

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:55:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3FPP1vWdpAEVaeMjDdt3+1eYRW+me0V5CW9P+_92fqpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Hi All,

I've been considering the recent global news regarding the dangers of 'AI
Weapons'[1], I was looking for some feedback on what would be defined as an
'AI Weapon'...

Basic Research says, common terms talk of 'arms race'[2], 'weapons'[3], yet
perhaps distinctions reasonably relate to any form of 'warfare'[4], whether
that be 'economic warfare'[5], perhaps 'information warfare'[6] or perhaps
more explicitly, conventional warfare or other acts of war [7] generally....

Yet, from a laypersons point of view, a weapon seems more like something
that can be used to harm or control another by way of act or threats of
acting as to utilise the 'weapon'...

Yet therein also, are factors of self-defence, et.al.   Yet that in-turn
brings about far more complex issues, such as;
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

So, at the risk of reading far too deeply into the work that has been
promoted via news networks, world-wide, I wanted to consider the merits of
this open-letter in the broader sense, and therein seek your views.

One of the Questions I ponder, tangentially related to standards work,
relates to both storage and in-turn how systems enable the use of
agents[8].  Pending their distinction, et.al.  how are they made capable?
How should they be shut down if necessary and perhaps implicitly, pursuant
to some of the web-science [9] concepts within the field of linked-data,
how might these sorts of concepts apply to new industrious concepts such as
autonomous organisations [10].

Equally, choices made between  methodological manifests that may in-turn
centralise control methods, whether corruptible or believed to be
otherwise...

For example; Perhaps there are means in which distinctions can be made
between 'trust' as it is applied by accountable people / groups of people
(whilst maintaining a decentralised method in the groups / people /
interdependencies, similar to global systems of democracy, et.al.) vs.
'trust' as it is applied by a computational / Hardware + Software
Communications platform that supports the manifest outcome of trust
computationally, subject to the variabilities of the underlying assumptions
made.

IE: if depending upon bitcoin, this 51% thread [11] relates to $ rather
than accountability methodologies, possibly applicable to e-contracts and
other formats of trade, which when considering the IOU nature of $ and
transactional demands of systems, should they effectively be capable of
high-frequency transactions as required by markets extend the
considerations, in-turn may consider that it is the h/w perhaps that is
most important ?

So, the chain could issue an academic credential based on a bitcoin block /
chain / notation; yet, i'm not sure how that would change if it was subject
to change in future (ie: someone cheated)...

So, whilst i've prompted the question with a few considerations; the
underlying question is about the  views of those on the list, about what is
an 'AI Weapon'...

Given so few in the world understand linked-data, i figured it was a
reasonable question to ask the various groups.

What would protect and/or uphold the concept, of preventing the creation of
'AI Weapons'.  What is the definition of an 'AI Weapon'.

If others were going to add-value to the sentiment made about AI Weapons
[1] what would you say...

underlying it all of course, is the reality of living in a world with such
advanced technologies, yet comprehending the difficulties that so many
humans experience regardless of what is technologically available, as would
protect persons from the same issue, should they be of different
circumstance, the implications of improving public data is one very simple
example of how things might improve for the better, once better data is
available for research, and consideration by our systems of law, et.al.

Tim.

[1] http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warfare
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
[8] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent
[9] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization
[11]
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/658/what-can-an-attacker-with-51-of-hash-power-do
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:57:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:57:16 UTC