The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the University of Toronto have launched new initiatives to support and focus philosophical research on various aspects of artificial intelligence (AI).
The Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at LSE has received a $5.3 million donation to launch a new research group—The Global Priorities Research Group (GPRG)—dedicated to “determining which problems matter most and what should be done in trying to realize the best outcomes for humanity and the wider world.”
It’s primary emphasis will be “philosophical research that helps us navigate the largest-scale challenges associated with the impacts of transformative AI.”
Funded by Good Ventures, a philanthropic foundation, the GPRG “will also consider how we should compare and weight the interests of different kinds of beings—be they human, animal, or perhaps even artificial—as well as pursuing foundational research on issues related to value and rational choice with the potential to reorient our priorities across a wide range of issues.”
The group will be led by philosophers Andreas L. Mogensen, who recently joined LSE from the University of Oxford, and Teruji Thomas (Oxford, LSE), and will be based at LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science.
Meanwhile, the Artificial Consciousness Initiative is a new project from the University of Toronto Department of Philosophy that “aims to advance foundational research connecting artificial intelligence and consciousness.”
The project’s director, philosopher Andrew Y. Lee, writes:
The initiative’s research agenda focuses on questions about the nature, structure, and indicators of artificial consciousness; the valence and character of potential artificial experiences; the welfare and moral status of artificial systems; and the ethical and safety risks raised by increasingly capable AI. The initiative does not presuppose that current artificial systems are conscious or that future ones will be. But it starts from the view that these questions are worth taking seriously.
The core team of the Artificial Consciousness Initiative includes Karina Vold, Christian Tarsney, and Gwen Bradford.
The initiative’s aims include basic research, partnerships with other institutions, and contributing to public and policy discussions related to AI consciousness. The project is supported by a large grant from Longview Philanthropy.
Both initiatives are currently hiring postdocs.
This is excellent news. I know that I am deeply concerned every single day when I look at philjobs and see so few offerings for people working on philosophical issues related to AI.
“will also consider how we should compare and weight the interests of different kinds of beings—be they human, animal, or perhaps even artificial”
This is a trojan horse. The encroachment of weighing the ‘interests’ of [corporate owned] artificial beings, against the wellbeing of humans and animals, and at a time like this, is insidious.
I’m not quite as cynical as “Despondent” (though their comment got a wry grin from me). But I am cynical enough that I would really like it if you’d say a bit more about the funders when announcing the launch of things like this. As one should guess from the name, Longview are an openly longtermist effective altruist organization and its funders, to the extent one can find that information, include a crypto mogul and a former Jane Street trader. Good Ventures is almost entirely funded by Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, tech billionaires and card carrying effective altruists.
So I am very worried that at worst these are attempts to ethics-wash what AI companies do. And even at best, we need to be aware of the ways that funders like Good Ventures and Longview will shape the debate in ways that foreground certain issues– skynet killing us all to be blunt about it– and ignore others like implicit bias in AI, intellectual property theft, deskilling of labor, environmental damage, responsibility sinks for targeting in war, and exacerbating what I’d describe as anti-humanist approaches to education just to name a few. None of that is to dismiss out of hand anything these initiatives might produce, but if analytic philosophers have any pretensions to critical thinking they need to ask the “Who’s paying for this and what do they want for their money?” questions far more often than they do.