risk of creating machine intelligence

Annotation: the urgency of the problem is considered; the risk of creating artificial intelligence;

---

AL Shamis The risk of creating machine intelligence. Now the press and popular science articles often discuss the problem of global risks that humanity may face. One of these risks is called artificial intelligence. It is assumed that the “Big Artificial Intelligence” will surpass natural intelligence in its level and will be able to improve itself. Pretty close dates are predicted. For example, 2030, but not further than 2050. All assumptions about close (constantly moving away) terms are built with reference to the alleged successes and derivatives of the development of algorithmic (software) artificial intelligence, pattern recognition and formal neural networks. It is discussed, what will be the artificial intelligence in relation to the person - friendly or not friendly. In particular, it is assumed that machines with such intelligence can enter into competition and struggle with humanity. It is assumed that the result of the struggle of "Big Artificial Intelligence" with a person may not be in favor of the person. There is an international public "Transhummanitar movement", one of the main objectives of which is to prepare for the emergence of a large artificial intelligence and call for the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring that machine intelligence is friendly. These problems seem to many very relevant. Especially against the background of intensively developing information and communication technologies, which are often, especially at the household level, confused with the technologies of artificial intelligence. However, I believe that you can reassure everyone. The discussed problem is not relevant. Artificial intelligence in itself will not be either friendly or unfriendly. He will be passive. As passive as a computer chess program, winning over the world champion, but not aware of it and not striving for it. In addition, the disparate results obtained in the direction of work, called "Artificial Intelligence", including pattern recognition and formal neural networks, do not form active thinking and do not lead to full-fledged machine thinking. No constructive blueprint for the creation of a large artificial intelligence does not currently exist. The derivative of the development of the theory of artificial thinking is close to zero. There is no theory of the brain in the process of thinking and in biology. From all this we can conclude that no “point of singularity” on the curve of development of artificial intelligence in the area of ​​2050 is foreseen. Thus, we repeat once again that the problem "the risk of creating machine thinking" is not relevant. Will this problem be relevant in the future? No, it will not. Systems that could compete and fight people would have to have the needs, motivation, will, activity, and emotional behavior control mechanism. They would have to have consciousness, i.e. awareness of oneself as an individual or person in interaction with the environment. In addition, these systems must have the possibility of some kind of behavior, i.e. effectors. In addition, these systems must compete with people for some limited resource. That is, only some other life could compete with organic life on earth. It follows from this that, in principle, one can discuss not the contrived problem of the risk of creating Big Artificial Intelligence, but the problem of the risk of creating artificially an alternative non-protein life. True, there are no constructive prerequisites for artificially creating an alternative life. At the same time, there is not only an unsolvable while “how” question, but also the question “why”. At the same time, it should be noted that there is a 2045 movement. Within the framework of this movement, the goal is to create an alternative life - an immortal "being" with an artificial inorganic body and artificial intelligence. This non-physiological "being" must replace a mortal man. The planned concrete works do not contain anything that could fundamentally distinguish them from long-standing work on the creation of robots, cyborgs and modeling of thinking. At the same time, it can be noted that neither the development of robots, nor the development of so-called cyborgs, nor any other similar systems on an inorganic basis has anything to do with creating an alternative life. Inanimate systems are in equilibrium with the environment, or in motion towards equilibrium. (An artificially maintained imbalance in passive dissipative self-organizing systems is a separate issue that is considered in [2] and which we will not dwell on here). Open, having the needs of living active self-organizing systems are in a state of actively maintained imbalance, i.e. in a state of continuous struggle with death. Balance is death. Apparently, it is this feature of the biological form of the movement of matter, i.e. feature of living systems is the basis of such "vitalistic" properties of the living, such as activity, purposefulness, consciousness, will, emotions. An inorganic artificial system, even having some kind of intelligence, does not need constant active self-organization, i.e., to maintain its existence, unlike a living organism. execution of internal and external work to maintain their nonequilibrium state [1]. Such a "being" will not be alive. It will not have not only needs, but we will repeat it again, it will not have goals, motivations, desires, activity and emotions. It will not have consciousness. Thus, the specific works planned within the framework of the 2045 movement are no different from the work already being done on creating robots, cyborgs and artificial intelligence with all the problems and shortcomings of these works. The point of technological singularity associated with the creation of artificial intelligence is not foreseen either in the foreseeable or in the distant future. At the same time, an alternative life based on the planned works cannot be built. Intensively propagated goals of the movement 2045, have no scientific justification. Literature 1. Bauer E.S. Theoretical Biology. SPb, Rostock, 2002 2. A.L. Shamis. Vector of evolution. M. URSS, 2013