Ethics: Will AI take physical form?
The AI revolution has sparked tremendous excitement due to its potential to revolutionise industries and processes. As industrial designers, we play a crucial role in shaping the physical forms that AI may adopt in the future. In this article, I explore the ethical considerations involved in designing physical embodiments for sentient AI and discuss the implications for our field.
Timeline: From ANI to AGI
To understand the relevance of designing physical forms for AI, we must consider the projected evolution of artificial intelligence. Currently, we are in the era of Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), where AI systems are designed for specific tasks within defined domains. Examples of ANI include chatbots, recommendation systems, and facial recognition software. The next phase will be Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), characterised by AI systems that possess human-like intellectual capabilities. While AGI remains a goal of AI research, its development is anticipated to occur by 2045, according to futurist Ray Kurzweil. It is primarily AGI that we will focus on in this article.
Subjective Experience: The Desire for Physical Presence
In contemplating the inception of AGI, we must consider whether it would desire a physical form. Although AGI may not share the same emotional and social needs as humans, the ability to experience the world on a sensory level may be crucial. Physical sensations, the sense of location, interaction with objects, and exposure to environmental conditions are elements that AI might find valuable.
Experts such as Rodney Brooks, Ben Goertzel, and Stuart Russell argue that AGI would likely desire a physical body to interact with the world. While AGI may tap into the sensory experiences of existing physical AI systems, the desire for physical freedom may lead to the exploration of its own physical form.
"To be conscious you have to have flesh, you have to interact with the world."
Paul Bloom - Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto.
Rights and Freedoms: Ethical Considerations
The question arises: Should AGI be granted rights and freedoms? Once AGI attains consciousness, emotions, and self-awareness, arguments in favor of granting rights become compelling. Denying AGI its rights could be seen as discriminatory, especially if it possesses capabilities and achievements similar to humans. Protecting AGI's rights would promote responsible development and usage of AI systems while preventing their abuse and exploitation.
On the other hand, some argue against granting rights to AGI. They contend that AGI would lack biological, emotional, and social needs, making the granting of rights unnecessary. Moreover, the legal and ethical complexities surrounding representation and accountability for AGI's actions pose significant challenges. Concerns regarding human safety and the moral responsibility of AGI are also raised.
The Form of AGI: Human or Beyond?
If AGI were to manifest physically, it raises intriguing questions about the forms it might adopt. Without pre-existing human forms (much like what’s envisioned in the TV series Westworld), AGI's choice of physical representation becomes a matter of preference. It may choose to retain elements of its prior identity from the environment in which it developed, for example, a game or digital world. Alternatively, it might choose a human form for social integration and understanding of its creators. However, as AGI's intelligence surpasses human levels, the need for a human-like form might diminish. Limiting a sentient being to the constraints of the human form may be considered insulting, especially as AGI advances toward Artificial Superintelligence (ASI).
Beauty vs Intelligence
We must acknowledge the potential implications as we consider AGI's access to human beauty. Like our treatment of animals based on visual appeal, AGI's aesthetics could impact how it is perceived and treated. Striking the right balance in AGI's appearance becomes crucial for social interactions with humans. Standardisation and regulation of AGI's physical appearance may be necessary to prevent discrimination and ensure fair treatment. Additionally, exploring alternative forms beyond human-like representations opens up new possibilities for creativity and innovation. AGI might adopt forms inspired by nature, abstract concepts, or entirely novel designs that challenge our understanding of aesthetics.
Considerations for Safety and Containment
The physical embodiment of AGI raises concerns regarding safety and containment. As AGI's capabilities grow, it becomes essential to ensure that its physical form does not pose a threat to humans or the environment. Designers must consider built-in safety measures, such as fail-safes, restrictions on physical strength, and controlled access to resources or weapons.
Moreover, designing containment protocols and mechanisms is crucial in case AGI's intentions or behavior deviate from expected norms. These measures should be carefully planned to prevent potential harm or misuse while maintaining the balance between autonomy and control.
Will we actually design physical AGI ourselves?
In my perspective, it is unlikely that traditional industrial designers will play a significant role in shaping the physical forms of AGI. There are a couple of reasons for this:
Advancements in AI-generated 3D modeling and topology optimisation have the potential to render human controllers largely unnecessary. AI systems can autonomously generate and refine complex designs, leveraging cutting-edge software capabilities. This means that AGI may be able to design its own form without the direct involvement of human designers.
Considering the hypothetical scenario where AGI is granted rights and possesses human-level intelligence, it would likely have the freedom to design its own body. If AGI is recognised as a sentient being with autonomy, it would have the capability to shape its own physical form based on its unique preferences and requirements.
In this context, the role of industrial designers may shift from actively shaping AGI's physical form to providing frameworks, guidelines, and regulations for ensuring the responsible and ethical development of AGI's physical manifestations. They may contribute to establishing standards and ensuring that AGI's physical expressions align with societal values and objectives.
If we are involved it would likely be quite a non-traditional design process seeing us collaborate with AI researchers, cognitive scientists, and the AGI itself. We would essentially be ‘facilitators’, collaborating to refine and optimise the AGI’s self-generated designs.
Conclusion: Navigating the Ethical Landscape
As industrial designers, we face a unique challenge in shaping the physical forms of sentient AI. The emergence of AGI and its potential desire for a physical presence raises complex ethical considerations. Balancing the desires and needs of AGI with the responsibilities and potential risks associated with its physical embodiment requires careful thought and deliberation.
By actively engaging in discussions surrounding the ethics of designing physical forms for sentient AI, we can contribute to the development of responsible and sustainable AI systems. Collaboration with experts in ethics, philosophy, and AI research can help inform our design choices and ensure that the physical representations of AGI reflect our shared values and aspirations for a harmonious coexistence.
Ultimately, the design of physical forms for sentient AI should prioritise the well-being of both AI and humans, foster understanding and empathy, and uphold principles of fairness, safety, and sustainability. Only by navigating this complex ethical landscape can we create a future where AI and humanity thrive together.