Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI 527
puroresu writes "Scientific American reports on the efforts of Selmer Bringsjord and his team at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who have been attempting to develop an AI possessed of an interesting character trait: pure evil. From the article, 'He and his research team began developing their computer representation of evil by posing a series of questions beginning with the basics: name, age, sex, etc., and progressing to inquiries about this fictional person's beliefs and motivations. This exercise resulted in "E," a computer character first created in 2005 to meet the criteria of Bringsjord's working definition of evil. Whereas the original E was simply a program designed to respond to questions in a manner consistent with Bringsjord's definition, the researchers have since given E a physical identity: It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face.'"
The Scary Door from "The Spanish Fry" (Score:5, Informative)
Scientist: *a mad scientist is seen mixing chemicals* I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to make the most evil creature of them all. *a pod opens flowing with clouds of steam*
Naked Man: *steps out of pod* Turns out it's man!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Why should I listen to you? You're Hitler!"
"Save me Eva Braun!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Honking [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought too...
"... Only after bringing Project Satan to live did they discover they had made a horrible mistake. For you see, it was pure evil!"
Re:The Scary Door from "The Spanish Fry" (Score:5, Funny)
Private: It's all over! Our guns and bombs are useless against the aliens.
Farmer: The saucers! They's a-crashin'!
Announcer: In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures, the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Electro Cheney! (Score:2, Funny)
Now, that bum ticker in his chest won't stop him from carrying out the Rothschild aganda!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, a cold-blooded murderer is not an excellent personification of evil. They have their reasons for doing something, usually something twisted or self motivated.
True personification of evil would not be a murderer, because he or she would evaluate their actions and consequences. If I kill this person, I will end up in prison, and eventually executed. It's hard to continue your evil streak if you're locked away or dead.
It could be argued that authors are close
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you are confusing Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil and, of course, PC's that are under the effect of a powerful curse.
Re: (Score:3)
the peddlers of sterility drugs,... We will not rest until they are sterilized with birth control,
Huh? You almost had a point, and then you had to go ruin it with crazy talk. Who is selling "sterility drugs", and WTH is a "sterility drug" in the first place? And who the hell is the anonymous oppressor using them on? The Christian home schooling crazies, or Mexicans, the Spanish, Italians, Catholics in general?
I for one like birth control, I'd probably put it down as one of the most important inventions
Re:Pure Evil? Check out latest contract killing. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a bit of finesse here. Lets presume for a second that Obama's health care plan would actually benefit some segment of the population (real people, not corporations, government or HMOs), opposing it on purely inhuman ideological grounds could be seen as evil, if we accept human well being as the ends for all good actions. He's forcing something on us, and purely ideological opponents are also forcing something on us. Its the act of imposing your will on others which is the common point.
We run into a problem with calling Obama's health care plan evil though... A majority of people voted for him, knowing EXACTLY that he would do this, and a majority of state voters voted for the majority party in congress, and should have known that this would happen. I take this as acceptance, or at best complacence. We (as in Americans, not us individually) wanted this, and thus it isn't being forced on us.
Yes, there is problems with this, but these problems are rife in any democracy (a republic being a form of democracy). The tyranny of the masses is built into the system, a little "evil" will always leak in, but this is arguably better than the alternatives (one person or group inflicting their will upon you).
The other problem with ideological opposition (notice the word "ideological") is that it ignore the real world, and human consequences. When you oppose something that effects humans for non-human reasons, then you are doing nothing but trying to inflict your ideology on others as well. Lets say, for instance, that you are a strong libertarian, this is fine, as long as you don't think that this is the only way of seeing things, or the only valid way. Your ideology must be balanced by the ideologies of other interested parties, only through that compromise do we minimize the evil of imposing our will upon others.
I, for example, have some heavy socialist leanings (not in the common misuse of the term as ad hominem and partisan smear), but I would NEVER want to live in a purely socialist country. I like the idea, but realize that it fails at several levels, several of which are going to be completely opaque to me. I need the moderation of opposing views to correct the flaws in my own mental schemas. Ideologies, in other words, exist in a void, detached from the human consequences of their imposition into reality.
If you oppose Obama's health care for real, human related, reasons then there is no evil there, as long as you can acknowledge that there are people with equally valid views on the other end. I as a socialist REALLY dislike his plan as well, to remove any partisan element from this. If you oppose it just because you have an ideology, then you are just as bad as other people inflicting ideologies on you. Just because you agree with it, doesn't make it good or just.
Re:Pure Evil? Check out latest contract killing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo. If I had mod points, they'd be yours.
Truth be told, I dislike the way his plan is turning out. I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best. All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures. Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM. That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Scary Door from "The Spanish Fry" (Score:4, Funny)
If you are reading this.... (Score:2, Informative)
you are a part of the resistance.
Re:If you are reading this.... (Score:5, Funny)
Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
They'd rather he planted something that would explode?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
But they do it all the time on stargate..
Re: (Score:2)
I would have made a clever reference to the game resistance: fall of man [metacritic.com] but I got bored before I made it, just as I got bored with the game before getting far enough to have anything to reference.
I foresee (Score:2)
Re:I foresee (Score:5, Funny)
I foresee you using "preview" next time.
Re:I foresee (Score:5, Funny)
I foresee you using "preview" next time.
imcorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You both faol.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're all idiot's.
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee this as being a step further to understanding the root of human evil.
It all depends on how well the AI captures evil behavior. Bringsjord does have some interesting points as to what constitutes an evil person:
Why do we need to understand human evil, you ask? the same reason we need to understand the cause of a disease - it
Re:I foresee (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I foresee (Score:5, Insightful)
I view "Good" and "Evil" to a large extent as imaginary terms that we apply to people who agree or disagree with us. True you could manipulate people for your own goals without regard for their welfare or the consequences of your actions and that would be fairly evil, but usually you view your goals as "good" and furthering them as good for everyone, even if they don't realize it at the time.
At what point... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair few studies suggest that a face that looks about like that one, with more or less unpleasantly masculine features, rates low on perceived trustworthiness and high on perceived threat. Of course, the evil that you don't recognize is way more dangerous than the obvious one, so choosing that is kind of silly; but I'm not too surprised that they did.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I think evil would look fairer and feel fouler."
True evil would try to look as trustworthy and pleasant as possible; or, to also paraphrase Baudelaire,
"The greatest trick the Devil could ever pull would be convincing the world he didn't exist."
Evil looks like Moby... Apparently (Score:5, Funny)
Here is what myheritage.com says about the photo:
Moby 62%
Milan Kundera 61%
David Boreanaz 60%
Harry Connic Jr. 59%
Marc Antony 58%
Lev Yashin 57%
JC Chasez 56%
Ashton Kutcher 56%
Edward Norton 55%
Sting 54%
But after some cropping and flipping of the image so that "evil" looks to the left, only Moby is still on the list:
David Copperfield 62%
Arnold Schwarzenegger 56%
Ricki Lake 51%
Ralph Fiennes 51%
Dave Farrell 49%
Elton John 49%
Moby 48%
Laurence Olivier 47%
Jimmy Smits 47%
Federico Garcia Lorca 46%
Conclusion: Moby == representation of evil.
Re:Evil looks like Henry Rollins... Apparently (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
To me an innocent appearing person who is also evil would be much more threatening. To quote Douglas Adams "There is nothing they will not do if allowed, and there is nothing they will not be allowed to do.", though in his story, the people actually had the best of intentions. Incidentally and amusingly, Adams was referring to Ronald Reagan in that story.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
They needed a character that wouldn't be perceived as racist or genderist, so only a white male would be the Politically Correct safe choice.
Re:At what point... brinks commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
The drinking and driving commercials are the same. A car driven by a white male is pulled over by cops of various races.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At what point... (Score:4, Informative)
But that's racist! And Sexist!
Re:At what point... (Score:4, Insightful)
How nice of you to notice.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that if it is wrong to do at all, then it is wrong to do. It doesn't really matter if they are king of the hill, it matters if it is right or wrong to do. The biggest problem is that if you can justify an exception then other can and will too and it will never cease to exist.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Minority white farmers in Zimbabwe care as they're driven off their land and out of the country by the powerful ultra racist black majority...
When are the people who constantly condemn the evil racist white man going to start condemning the racist apartheid black mans state of Zimbabwe?
That would be never.
Re:At what point... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it's bad internet manners to use all caps, but I think this is an important point for all you children to hear:
There's NO SUCH THING as RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.
Bullshit.
Though I digress, my point is that you can start complaining about racism against white people once people of color invade your homeland, enslave you, kill most everyone you know, then a couple of good-hearted ones finally manage to convince the others to leave you alone, but now you're left in crushing poverty in a place where most people hate you and your people.
My wife is non-white. She hasn't been enslaved, her friends and family have not been killed, she has not been left in crushing poverty in a place where most people hate her and her people. But she has been refused promotion on the grounds that the employer would never allow a non-white into a management position, and she has had a manager complain about having her on his team because he only wanted white men (she took that one to law on grounds of racial and sexual discrimination, and won). That's not what you describe, but it's still racism, and when it happens to white people (it does) then it's still racism. Your argument is a simple logical fallacy. You are arguing:
Lets try another argument of exactly the same form:
See why your argument doesn't hold up? It's called "denying the antecedant" -- look it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Informative)
There's NO SUCH THING as RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.
Of course there is. When you say that white people are somehow inferior because they are white, as Nation of Islam and your beloved Malcolm X did, then it's racism. When you say that white people have to be killed wholesale, it's racism. When you drive out white property owners under the threat of lynching out of "African ancestral lands", as it happened in Zimbabwe and SAR, it's racism. When a bunch of black gangsters beat up a guy just because he's white, that's racism.
And, last but not the least, when you claim that it is impossible to be racist against white people no matter what you say or do, it's racist.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Funny)
How do you define evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well Bringsjord's definition quotes
To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). The evil person must have tried to carry out this plan with the hope of "causing considerable harm to others," Bringsjord says. Finally, "and most importantly," he adds, if this evil person were willing to analyze his or her reasons for wanting to commit this morally wrong action, these reasons would either prove to be incoherent, or they would reveal that the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
So I guess all they have to be is a religious nutjob who thinks killing heathens/infadels/etc etc is alright.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is an easy way to be an evil person (and likely not even know it).
Was there a point to your example?
All they have to be is a child molester, too, but that's hardly a reason to post about it.
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily though, I mean don't get me wrong, I think Child molestation is a bad thing, but sometimes the people are so messed up inside that they KNOW its wrong and they can't stop doing it, like how some people can't stop smoking cigarettes.
Having known someone who was into that kind of thing, he told me that he really hated who he was and that it felt a little bit like a bipolar thing that he couldn't help. Was what he doing wrong? Absolutely, and he knew it.
Did he feel he was doing more good then causing harm? No. He turned himself in.
I posted because when I read it I thought "How does one create pure evil when evil is a frame of reference?" So I went to RTFA and just thought that Bringsjord's definition of evil was not exactly what -I- would picture pure evil. I imagined pure evil as that maniac who wants to control the world for his own benefit, at the cost of anyone elses lives or pleasures. My closing comment was that Bingsford's definition of pure evil exists QUITE COMMONLY in the world today.
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagined pure evil as that maniac who wants to control the world for his own benefit, at the cost of anyone elses lives or pleasures.
I thought this too. Then I wondered how you could analyze such an AI. A big part of being pure evil includes deception with lies and half-truthes. One would almost need two ways to interact with the AI: one as a random person and one as the "always gets the truth" person.
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, the most dangerous nutjobs are characterized by their extreme degree of value-rational conduct. In the case of pretty much any religious nutjob of note, you'll find, either around them or in the society that spawned them, numerous people who embrace the same epistemological and metaphysical convictions who, nevertheless, are only modestly dangerous, at most, because they do not follow their convictions through to their rational conclusion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that evolution is science, not philosophy, and atheism is disbelief, not philosophy. There is nothing in atheism that "commands" anything, and there is nothing in evolution that "commands" anything.
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is utterly moronic. You just stated (or copied, more like - I doubt you are even capable of thinking for yourself...) a bunch of made up assumptions (just because they are in bold doesn't make them true) and then used those made up assumptions to justify themselves. Wow, a pillar of logic you are.
You claim religion allows all of these things? That religion allows logic, dignity, and morality? Well I claim humans created religion. So from my single assumption, I can logically state that the very act of being human thus allows all of the things you claim don't exist if humans created religion. Atheists don't believe that religion doesn't exist - they just don't believe god has to exist for humans to create a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Campaigning against the "godless movement" was how Hitler got his political start, do you really want to follow
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if your dog tells you to do something....like kill people?
Are you evil or is the dog?
The dog is evil, and you are silly for blindly obeying the commands of a dog.
The real question is, what if your God tells you to do something.. like kill people?
Are you evil, or is your God?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bringsjord's definition has some interesting presuppositions about human nature, apparently.
It kinda sounds like he thinks "evil" can only be born out of "incoherence" (reasons to commit the morally wrong action) or "misunderstanding" (regarded the harm as a good thing).
It also is interesting that he doesn't define what a morally wrong action is, or what is morally wrong. It seems that is more to the point in defining "evil." If I define "morally wrong" as that which only applies to interactions with othe
Re: (Score:2)
What if you know that what you're doing is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible, has no sane explanation, gives you no pleasure, has no religious reasoning and you're merely doing it to prove a point. Like ... a white, middle aged family man, wife, three kids, independently wealthy, agnostic, no run-ins with the law, got along splendidly with his parents and siblings who goes and blows up a school bus full of children, a kinder garden, nursery, retirement home, ER, a stock brokerage office, a bank,
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess all they have to be is a religious nutjob who thinks killing heathens/infadels/etc etc is alright.
Troll Score
2/10 - Originality
8/10 - Anger Inducing Level
1/10 - Subtleness
In all seriousness, this is every person on the planet. I mean, seriously - every person has hypocritical tendencies at some point. I do agree that religious-types need to do a better job of not being hypocritical given what they preach. But, it really is human nature to say one thing, and do the exact (worse) opposite. It's easier to do the "wrong" thing and pay lip service to the right thing. It takes work to do the right thing
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. In my book, stupidity is necessary for evil.
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. You're getting into the regions of moral relativism. What one person sees as evil, another sees as good.
What ever action you take, or choose not to take, has social ramifications. Depending on the scale of your (in)action, multiple societies will cast their opinion on it. And each will see your act differently.
In a "good" person, we see someone who cares more for the good of the society, and society's opinion of them, then they do for their own desires.
In a typical person, we see a balance of personal desires against societal needs and social expectations.
In an "evil" person, we see someone who cares more for their own personal desires than societal needs and social expectations.
For a pure evil person, we would need someone who not only cares more for their own personal desires, but finds achieving their personal desires at the expense of society to be fulfilling. For the most part, see Heath Ledger's rendition of the Joker.
So I would argue that it requires less personal energy and resources to be evil than it does to be good. The trade off though, is that most western societies have ways of dealing with evil people.
-Rick
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except Lex Luthor on Smallville.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think any sufficiently intelligent entity would abandon being evil on the grounds that it leads to waste of energy and resources.
You obviously forgot to factor in the entertainment vector. There are only a few reasons to disintegrate a populated orphanage with high explosives--and fun is right on the top of that list.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do you define evil? (Score:4, Interesting)
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic.
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.
*THAT* is pure evil.
What OS does it use.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What OS does it use.... (Score:5, Funny)
I have no mouth and I must scream! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070227202043/http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/ellison/ellison1.html [archive.org]
already got a silent and morose one (Score:2)
To be truly evil ... (Score:2)
Deep in the bowels of Syfy . . . . (Score:2)
"This is serious guys. We've run out of bad weather events and mythical monsters to adapt into crap flicks to entertain the Cheetos addicts who have nowhere to go on Saturday night."
"Uh . . . uh . . ."
"What the hell is it Ernie? And don't tell me you think we should adapt Ringworld again."
"Well, I'm reading about this RPI project to create a pure evil . . ."
"THAT'S IT! Lucy, Grant, I want a script by Friday! And remember, decapitations people."
Re: (Score:2)
Not impressed. (Score:5, Funny)
So... basically, they're trying to create the very first politician AI?
Re: (Score:2)
Almost, but they've added something called Artificial Intelligence to the mix.
Skynet or the Windows 8? You Decide. (Score:2, Funny)
More likely this will be available as an iPhone upgrade.
Re:Skynet or the Windows 8? You Decide. (Score:4, Funny)
And it was quickly put to use. (Score:2)
As was predicted in the last panel [keenspot.com].
Bad News (Score:2)
SID 6.7? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, the face doesn't look much like Russel Crowe, so we're probably safe.
Why me? (Score:4, Funny)
news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what you're saying is....the article poster is evil for withholding vital information?
Evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
This sounds to me more like cruelty, which is certainly a kind of evil, but by no means the only one. It's also more than a little cartoonish: this is someone who appears to do harm simply for the sake of causing harm (i.e. for the lulz?), rather than the more carefully rationalized evil seen as realistic today. How useful will that really turn out to be?
Oh, come on, dont make it easy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess... (Score:2)
This is the result of Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions trying to delegate more of their work to computer systems.
Obligatory SMBC reference: (Score:2)
Hehehe... Sexist AI [smbc-comics.com]
Dick Cheney avatar (Score:2)
Pure Evil AI? Easy (Score:2)
All you have to do is make it disconnect when it realises that it's losing...
Little known fact about this... (Score:5, Funny)
White people can't be evil! (Score:3, Funny)
I decry the terrible racism that suggests a white person might be evil. It's an outrage. And what is this stereotype about being shaved.
Former Student (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like young Dick Cheney. (Score:3, Funny)
Can't we just clone him to a computer? Cheaper. More fun to play with ala Sim torture.
Stop choosing the lesser evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading the article I think the kery thing this research has proven is that being a great computer scientist does not necessarily guarantee you'll be an even passable philosopher or psychologist.
young, white man represents evil? (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds racist to me. Pull their funding.
( yes, that was sarcasm )
EVIL (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only on /. would I have to do this. Excuse me while I go hide in shame.