Assessing Artificial Intelligence for Humanity: Will AI be the Our Biggest Ever Advance ? or the Biggest Threat [Opinion]

Recent rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are arguably the most important dimension of humanity’s progress to date. As members of the human race, that is, homo sapiens, we are defined by our capacity for cognition. Until now, humans were the only species capable of higher cognitive functions. But today AI has advanced to a stage where on many cognitionrelated tasks it can match and even surpass the performance of humans. Examples include not only AI’s spectacular successes in winning Go, chess, and other board games with humans, and in surpassing humans on fully defined world puzzles. But AI is also now achieving extremely high efficiency in practical applications such as speech and object recognition, self-driving cars, intelligent tutoring systems, efficient decision support systems, and in the capacity to detect patterns in Big Data and in constructing accurate models of social behavior. Thus, for the first time in history, we must ask ourselves: “has our monopoly on intelligence, however defined, been challenged?”

[1]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  The thermodynamics of computation—a review , 1982 .

[2]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[3]  Bill N. Schilit,et al.  Context-aware computing applications , 1994, Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications.

[4]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Thomas G. Dietterich Adaptive computation and machine learning , 1998 .

[6]  Feng-Hsiung Hsu,et al.  Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer that Defeated the World Chess Champion , 2002 .

[7]  Christine L. Lisetti Affective computing , 1998, Pattern Analysis and Applications.

[8]  Wenji Mao,et al.  Social Computing: From Social Informatics to Social Intelligence , 2007, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[9]  T. Lombrozo,et al.  Simplicity and probability in causal explanation , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Maarten A. S. Boksem,et al.  Mental fatigue: Costs and benefits , 2008, Brain Research Reviews.

[11]  Laura A. Dabbish,et al.  Designing games with a purpose , 2008, CACM.

[12]  Erez Lieberman Aiden,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books , 2010, Science.

[13]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  From Context Awareness to Socially Aware Computing , 2012, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[14]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Globally networked risks and how to respond , 2013, Nature.

[15]  Ronald E. Robertson,et al.  The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Richard M Shiffrin,et al.  Drawing causal inference from Big Data , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Computational personality recognition in social media , 2016, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[18]  K. Vohs,et al.  Decision Fatigue, Choosing for Others, and Self-Construal , 2016 .

[19]  Albrecht Schmidt,et al.  Augmenting Human Intellect and Amplifying Perception and Cognition , 2017, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[20]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes , 2017, Philosophy & Technology.