BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Roman V. Yampolskiy appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
Terms Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Human-Level Artificial Intelligence (HLAI) have been used interchangeably to refer to the Holy Grail of Artificial Intelligence (AI) research, creation of a machine capable of achieving goals in a wide range of environments. However, widespread implicit assumption of equivalence between capabilities of AGI and HLAI appears to be unjustified, as humans are not general intelligences. In this paper, we will prove this distinction.
Invention of artificial general intelligence is predicted to cause a shift in the trajectory of human civilization. In order to reap the benefits and avoid pitfalls of such powerful technology it is important to be able to control it. However, possibility of controlling artificial general intelligence and its more advanced version, superintelligence, has not been formally established. In this paper, we present arguments as well as supporting evidence from multiple domains indicating that advanced AI can't be fully controlled. Consequences of uncontrollability of AI are discussed with respect to future of humanity and research on AI, and AI safety and security.
Yampolskiy and others have shown that the space of possible minds is vast, actually infinite (Yampolskiy, 2015). A question of interest is 'Which activities can minds perform during their lifetime?' This question is very broad, thus in this article restricted to 'Which non-boring activities can minds perform?' The space of potential non-boring activities has been called by Yudkowsky 'fun space' (Yudkowsky, 2009). This paper aims to discuss the relation between various types of minds and the part of the fun space, which is accessible for them.
In this work, we present and analyze reported failures of artificially intelligent systems and extrapolate our analysis to future AIs. We suggest that both the frequency and the seriousness of future AI failures will steadily increase. AI Safety can be improved based on ideas developed by cybersecurity experts. For narrow AIs safety failures are at the same, moderate, level of criticality as in cybersecurity, however for general AI, failures have a fundamentally different impact. A single failure of a superintelligent system may cause a catastrophic event without a chance for recovery. The goal of cybersecurity is to reduce the number of successful attacks on the system; the goal of AI Safety is to make sure zero attacks succeed in bypassing the safety mechanisms. Unfortunately, such a level of performance is unachievable. Every security system will eventually fail; there is no such thing as a 100% secure system.
With unprecedented advances in genetic engineering we are starting to see progressively more original examples of synthetic life. As such organisms become more common it is desirable to be able to distinguish between natural and artificial life forms. In this paper, we present this challenge as a generalized version of Darwin's original problem, which he so brilliantly addressed in On the Origin of Species. After formalizing the problem of determining origin of samples we demonstrate that the problem is in fact unsolvable, in the general case, if computational resources of considered originator algorithms have not been limited and priors for such algorithms are known to be equal. Our results should be of interest to astrobiologists and scientists interested in producing a more complete theory of life, as well as to AI-Safety researchers.
Despite significant developments in Proof Theory, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the concept of proof verifier. In particular, the mathematical community may be interested in studying different types of proof verifiers (people, programs, oracles, communities, superintelligences) as mathematical objects. Such an effort could reveal their properties, their powers and limitations (particularly in human mathematicians), minimum and maximum complexity, as well as self-verification and self-reference issues. We propose an initial classification system for verifiers and provide some rudimentary analysis of solved and open problems in this important domain. Our main contribution is a formal introduction of the notion of unverifiability, for which the paper could serve as a general citation in domains of theorem proving, as well as software and AI verification.
Software capable of improving itself has been a dream of computer scientists since the inception of the field. In this work we provide definitions for Recursively Self-Improving software, survey different types of self-improving software, review the relevant literature, analyze limits on computation restricting recursive self-improvement and introduce RSI Convergence Theory which aims to predict general behavior of RSI systems. Finally, we address security implications from self-improving intelligent software.
The paper attempts to describe the space of possible mind designs by first equating all minds to software. Next it proves some interesting properties of the mind design space such as infinitude of minds, size and representation complexity of minds. A survey of mind design taxonomies is followed by a proposal for a new field of investigation devoted to study of minds, intellectology, a list of open problems for this new field is presented.
In this paper we present a Hashed-Path Traveling Salesperson Problem (HPTSP), a new type of problem which has the interesting property of having no polynomial time solutions. Next we show that HPTSP is in the class NP by demonstrating that local information about sub-routes is insufficient to compute the complete value of each route. As a consequence, via Ladner's theorem, we show that the class NPI is non-empty.
The paper serves as the first contribution towards the development of the theory of efficiency: a unifying framework for the currently disjoint theories of information, complexity, communication and computation. Realizing the defining nature of the brute force approach in the fundamental concepts in all of the above mentioned fields, the paper suggests using efficiency or improvement over the brute force algorithm as a common unifying factor necessary for the creation of a unified theory of information manipulation. By defining such diverse terms as randomness, knowledge, intelligence and computability in terms of a common denominator we are able to bring together contributions from Shannon, Levin, Kolmogorov, Solomonoff, Chaitin, Yao and many others under a common umbrella of the efficiency theory.