Robot apocalypse unlikely, but researchers need to understand AI risks

Experts say it's time to talk about some possible negative impacts of AI and how to avoid them

Concerns of a robot apocalypse may be overblown, some AI experts said.

Concerns of a robot apocalypse may be overblown, some AI experts said.

Recent concerns from tech luminaries about a robot apocalypse may be overblown, but artificial intelligence researchers need to start thinking about security measures as they build ever more intelligent machines, according to a group of AI experts.

The fields of AI and robotics can bring huge potential benefits to the human race, but many AI researchers don't spend a lot of time thinking about the societal implications of super intelligent machines, Ronald Arkin, an associate dean in the Georgia Tech College of Computing, said during a debate on the future of AI.

"Not all our colleagues are concerned with safety," Arkin said during the debate, which was hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in Washington, D.C. "You cannot leave this up to the AI researchers. You cannot leave this up to the roboticists. We are an arrogant crew, and we think we know what's best."

While human-like intelligence in machines should still be a long time away, it's not too early to start thinking about policies and regulations to prepare for that future, Arkin and other AI researchers said.

Long-held fears of a robotic takeover of the world, voiced in science fiction stories for decades, have gained new traction in recent months, with tech thinkers including Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk raising concerns about the dangers of AI.

Meanwhile, recent advances like Apple's Siri, Google's self-driving cars and the Deep-Q AI that has mastered dozens of Atari video games make some people believe that human-like machine intelligence is coming soon.

But it's hard to predict when human-like machine intelligence will happen, and it could still be decades away, said Nate Soares, executive director of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. AI is now capable of "deep learning" involving specific tasks, but researchers need several more breakthroughs before they can design machines that can learn to accomplish a broad range of activities, like humans do, he said.

Super human intelligence from machines will happen "somewhere between five and 150 years, if I was going to be bold" about a prediction, Soares said.

Soares said he falls on "both sides" of the debate about the danger of super intelligence machines. "AI's going to bring lots and lots of benefits and if we do it poorly, it's going to bring lots and lots of risks," he said.

It's important not to overstate the risks, countered Robert Atkinson, ITIF's president. Some policymakers and members of the media will latch onto visions of a robot apocalypse when AI experts express concerns about the downsides of intelligent machines, he said.

Those fears, in turn, could lead to limits on government AI funding and stunt the growth of the technology, Atkinson said. Musk's recent statement suggesting AI is "summoning the demon" is demonizing the technology, he said.

Few other technologies generate the same level of fear, he said. "It's very different to say, 'Look, we are a community of responsible scientists who are building safety into this thing, and we're pretty sure it's going to work,'" Atkinson said.

The good news is that humans are still in control over how AI and robots will develop, but a more robust discussion about AI's future is needed, said Stuart Russell, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of California, Berkeley.

Even though Atkinson suggested that the danger is limited because it's still impossible to design a robot with intentionality, Russell suggested intentions aren't necessary for there to be a risk.

"If the system is better than you at taking into account more information and looking further ahead into the future, and it doesn't have exactly the same goals as you, then you have a problem," Russell said. "The difficulty is that we don't know what the human race's values are, so we don't know how to specify the right goals for a machine so that its behavior is something that we actually like."

In some cases, AI developers might think they're giving the right instructions to an intelligent machine, but the results aren't what they expected, like in the legend of King Midas, Russell said. "What happens when you don't like what they're doing?" he said. "You could say, 'Shut them down,' but a super intelligent system ... knows that one of the biggest risks to it is being shut down, so it's already outthought you."

With many AI researchers working on a small piece of the general-purpose intelligence puzzle, policymakers and scientists should talk about the potential negative implications instead of "keeping our fingers crossed that we'll run out of gas before we run off the cliff," Russell added.

Some people are more optimistic about super intelligent machines coexisting with humans, said Manuela Veloso, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Service robots now escort visitors at Carnegie Mellon to Veloso's office and surf the Web to learn new information, she noted.

Robots are reaching a point where they will provide benefits to many people, she said. Research on coexistence will teach intelligent machines "not be taught to be outside of the scope of humankind but to be part of humankind," she said. "We will have humans, dogs, cats and robots."

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's email address is

Join the Good Gear Guide newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags BerkeleyInformation Technology and Innovation FoundationNate SoaresroboticsUniversity of CaliforniaGeorgia Techbill gatesMachine Intelligence Research InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityRonald Arkinstephen hawkingManuela VelososecurityElon MuskStuart RussellRobert Atkinsonpopular science

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest News Articles


GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy


First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni


For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell


The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi


The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott


My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?