The importance of motivations in artificial intelligence

Today a piece from MIT's Technology Review has found its way across my desktop. In the article, linked here, author Edward Boyden describes the idea that we may be approaching a point in history during which technology expands at a near unimaginable pace. The concept is not so hard to believe, especially for anyone who has seen the rise of computers in the last few decades--a period of time that itself has felt too fast for some. Boyden goes on to discuss that in this singularity, driven perhaps by artificially intelligent machines that make more intelligent machines, an essential premise of the advancement of technology by said machines will be the motivations we (presumably) program the machines with. Without proper motivation, the machines might simply use their immense intelligence to disect the inadequacies of the world, or they might determine that the finite lifespan of our corner of existence is in fact so brief that the time between now and extinction would be better spent watching YouTube or playing video games. The moral of the story, then, is that we should program machines to be motivated both to build better, smarter machines, but also to build those machines as themselves motivated to build better, smarter machines. Interesting idea.

But we all already know that Boyden is right that the motivations of our machines will be essential. Irrefutable proof of that was amply provided by the highly regarded work of Biehn, Hamilton, and Schwarzenegger. See also Monaghan & LeBeouf; Smith & Moynahan. Peer review of these works has been generally favorable.

The legal issues arising from human-created AI are of course also interesting, and vast. What liability exists if the AI product commits a crime or tort? To what extent can an AI serve as a witness under the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution and what cross-examination would fit? What legal rights and regimes govern a later generation of AI robots that, for example, claim they no longer wish to "belong" to their creator? And what, if any, issues of personality and "robot privacy" might exist? It should be no surprise, then, that there is already an ABA committee on AI & Robotics and that some of these issues have arisen (in less technology advanced forms) in courts. See, e.g. U.S. v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (considering whether a machine is a witness that gives statements) (Westlaw link here).

If Boyden is right that a singularity is approaching, the issues now partially hypothetical may quickly become entirely practical. But even if no singularity is near, robotics and AI are becoming more and more present in our lives. In the singularity, the motivation of our robots will be essential. But in the present, it is our own motivation and willingness to confront the future approaching that is essential. By all accounts, it will be a future shaped by artificial intelligence and myriad robotics. And by my account at least, it is a future not far away.

Considering Technology and the Law

As I start this blog on my academic exploration of the intersection of technology and the law, I come first (and necessarily so) to the big question: what on Earth am I going to name it??

I toyed first with something simple: Technology and the Law, perhaps. Regretfully, someone is already using technologylaw.blogspot, and a title these digital days is so much better if it reduces into (or at least parallels) a web address. Figuring "Technocratic" was probably not in that many blog titles, I arrive here.

But the name is also fitting. Miriam-Webster defines "technocratic" as "of, relating to, or suggestive of a technocrat or a technocracy." A "technocracy" is further defined as "government by technicians; specifically: management of society by technical experts." Part of the goal of this blog is to make clear just how much our society is in fact shaped, guided, and in managed by "technical experts."

In that observation, however, I am not particularly referring to management by technical experts as government officials. I am referring to the individuals at Google and Microsoft, at Research and Motion (makers of Blackberry), and, in the years to come, I predict those at companies like iRobot. It is because of companies like these that we are already living in a digital, web-interfaced, technology-driven age.

As technology continues to shape our world, the laws that structure society will of course evolve. Courts, agency administrators, and legislators alike will necessary develop jurisprudence to address that technological revolution. And so we come to the title of this exploration, "Technocractic Jurisprudence," a title that mirrors the mission of this blog: to explore the path law concerning technology has taken and should take in the future.

But, most importantly of all, this title also reduces to a great (previously unoccupied) web address.