2017年霍金最新演講

　　4月27日，著名物理學(xué)家史蒂芬·霍金在北京舉辦的全球移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)大會上做了視頻演講。在演講中，霍金重申人工智能崛起要么是人類最好的事情，要么就是最糟糕的事情。他認(rèn)為，人類需警惕人工智能發(fā)展威脅。因為人工智能一旦脫離束縛，以不斷加速的狀態(tài)重新設(shè)計自身，人類由于受到漫長的生物進(jìn)化的限制，將無法與之競爭，從而被取代。下面是演講的中英文全文。

　　Over my lifetime, I have seen very significant societal changes. Probably one of the most significant, and one that is increasingly concerning people today, is the rise of artificial intelligence.

　　In short, I believe that the rise of powerful AI, will be either the best thing, or the worst, ever to happen to humanity.

　　I have to say now, that we do not yet know which. But we should do all we can, to ensure that its future development benefits us, and our environment. We have no other option. I see the development of AI, as a trend with its own problems that we know must be dealt with, now and into the future.

　　The progress in AI research and development is swift. And perhaps we should all stop for a moment, and focus our research, not only on making AI more capable, but on maximizing its societal benefit.

　　Such considerations motivated the American Association for Artificial Intelligence's, two thousand and eight to two thousand and nine, Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures, which up to recently had focused largely on techniques, that are neutral with respect to purpose.

　　But our AI systems must do what we want them to do. Inter-disciplinary research can be a way forward: ranging from economics, law, and philosophy, to computer security, formal methods, and of course various branches of AI itself.

　　Everything that civilization has to offer, is a product of human intelligence, and I believe there is no real difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain, and what can be achieved by a computer.

　　It therefore follows that computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence, and exceed it. But we don’t know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by it and side-lined, or conceivably destroyed by it.

　　Indeed, we have concerns that clever machines will be capable of undertaking work currently done by humans, and swiftly destroy millions of jobs.

　　While primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far, have proved very useful, I fear the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans. AI would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete, and would be superseded. It will bring great disruption to our economy.

　　And in the future, AI could develop a will of its own, a will that is in conflict with ours. Although I am well-known as an optimist regarding the human race, others believe that humans can command the rate of technology for a decently long time, and that the potential of AI to solve many of the world's problems will be realised. I am not so sure.

　　In January 2015, I, along with the technological entrepreneur, Elon Musk, and many other AI experts, signed an open letter on artificial intelligence, calling for serious research on its impact on society.

　　In the past, Elon Musk has warned that super human artificial intelligence, is possible of providing incalculable benefits, but if deployed incautiously, will have an adverse effect on the human race.

　　He and I, sit on the scientific advisory board for the Future of Life Institute, an organization working to mitigate existential risks facing humanity, and which drafted the open letter. This called for concrete research on how we could prevent potential problems, while also reaping the potential benefits AI offers us, and is designed to get AI researchers and developers to pay more attention to AI safety.

　　In addition, for policymakers and the general public, the letter is meant to be informative, but not alarmist. We think it is very important, that everybody knows that AI researchers are seriously thinking about these concerns and ethical issues.

　　For example, AI has the potential to eradicate disease and poverty, but researchers must work to create AI that can be controlled. The four-paragraph letter, titled Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence, an Open Letter, lays out detailed research priorities in the accompanying twelve-page document.

　　For the last 20 years or so, AI has been focused on the problems surrounding the construction of intelligent agents, systems that perceive and act in some environment. In this context, intelligence is related to statistical and economic notions of rationality. Colloquially, the ability to make good decisions, plans, or inferences.

　　As a result of this recent work, there has been a large degree of integration and cross-fertilisation among AI, machine learning, statistics, control theory, neuroscience, and other fields. The establishment of shared theoretical frameworks, combined with the availability of data and processing power, has yielded remarkable successes in various component tasks, such as speech recognition, image classification, autonomous vehicles, machine translation, legged locomotion, and question-answering systems.

　　As development in these areas and others, moves from laboratory research to economically valuable technologies, a virtuous cycle evolves, whereby even small improvements in performance, are worth large sums of money, prompting further and greater investments in research.

　　There is now a broad consensus that AI research is progressing steadily, and that its impact on society is likely to increase. The potential benefits are huge, since everything that civilization has to offer, is a product of human intelligence; we cannot predict what we might achieve, when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI may provide.

　　But, and as I have said, the eradication of disease and poverty is not unfathomable. Because of the great potential of AI, it is important to research how to reap its benefits, while avoiding potential pitfalls.

　　Artificial intelligence research is now progressing rapidly. And this research can be discussed as short-term and long-term. Some short-term concerns relate to autonomous vehicles, from civilian drones and self-driving cars. For example, a self-driving car may, in an emergency, have to decide between a small risk of a major accident, and a large probability of a small accident.

　　Other concerns relate to lethal intelligent autonomous weapons. Should they be banned. If so, how should autonomy be precisely defined. If not, how should culpability for any misuse or malfunction be apportioned. Other issues include privacy concerns, as AI becomes increasingly able to interpret large surveillance datasets, and how to best manage the economic impact of jobs displaced by AI.

　　Long-term concerns, comprise primarily of the potential loss of control of AI systems, via the rise of super-intelligences that do not act in accordance with human wishes, and that such powerful systems would threaten humanity. Are such dystohttps://p.9136.com/28es possible.

　　If so, how might these situations arise. What kind of investments in research should be made, to better understand and to address the possibility of the rise of a dangerous super-intelligence, or the occurrence of an intelligence explosion.

　　Existing tools for harnessing AI, such as reinforcement learning, and simple utility functions, are inadequate to solve this. Therefore more research is necessary to find and validate a robust solution to the control problem.

　　Recent landmarks, such as the self-driving cars already mentioned, or a computer winning at the game of Go, are signs of what is to come. Enormous levels of investment are pouring into this technology.

　　The achievements we have seen so far, will surely pale against what the coming decades will bring, and we cannot predict what we might achieve, when our own minds are amplified by AI.

　　Perhaps with the tools of this new technological revolution, we will be able to undo some of the damage done to the natural world by the last one, industrialisation. Every aspect of our lyves will be transformed. In short, success in creating AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilisation.

　　But it could also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. I have said in the past that the development of full AI, could spell the end of the human race, such as the ultimate use of powerful autonomous weapons. Earlier this year, I, along with other international scientists, supported the United Nations convention to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons.

　　We await the outcome with nervous anticipation. Currently, nine nuclear powers have access to roughly 14,000 nuclear weapons, any one of which can obliterate cities, contaminate wide swathes of land with radioactive fall-out, and the most horrible hazard of all, cause a nuclear-induced winter, in which the fires and smoke might trigger a global mini-ice age.

　　The result is a complete collapse of the global food system, and apocalyptic unrest, potentially killing most people on earth. We scientists bear a special responsibility for nuclear weapons, since it was scientists who invented them, and discovered that their effects are even more horrific than first thought.

　　At this stage, I may have possibly frightened you all here today, with talk of doom. I apologise. But it is important that you, as attendees to today's conference, recognise the position you hold in influencing future research and development of today's technology.

　　I believe that we join together, to call for support of international treaties, or signing letters presented to individual governmental powers. Technology leaders and scientists are doing what they can, to obviate the rise of uncontrollable AI.

　　In October last year, I opened a new center in Cambridge, England, which will attempt to tackle some of the open-ended questions raised by the rapid pace of development in AI research. The Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, is a multi-disciplinary institute, dedicated to researching the future of intelligence, as crucial to the future of our civilisation and our species. We spend a great deal of time studying history, which let's face it, is mostly the history of stupidity.

　　So it's a welcome change, that people are studying instead the future of intelligence. We are aware of the potential dangers, but I am at heart an optimist, and believe that the potential benefits of creating intelligence are huge. Perhaps with the tools of this new technological revolution, we will be able to undo some of the damage done to the natural world, by industrialisation.

　　Every aspect of our lives will be transformed. My colleague at the institute, Huw Price, has acknowledged that the center came about partially as a result of the university’s Centre for Existential Risk. That institute examines a wider range of potential problems for humanity, while the Leverhulme Centre has a more narrow focus.

　　Recent developments in the advancement of AI, include a call by the European Parliament for drafting a set of regulations, to govern the yooss and creation of robots and AI. Somewhat surprisingly, this includes a form of electronic personhood, to ensure the rights and responsibilities for the most capable and advanced AI.

　　A European Parliament spokesman has commented, that as a growing number of areas in our daily lyves are increasingly affected by robots, we need to ensure that robots are, and will remain, in the service of humans.

　　The report as presented to MEPs, makes it clear that it believes the world is on the cusp of a new industrial robot revolution. It examines whether or not providing legal rights for robots as electronic persons, on a par with the legal definition of corporate personhood, would be permissible.

　　But stresses that at all times, researchers and designers should ensure all robotic design incorporates a kill switch. This didn't help the scientists on board the spaceship with Hal, the malfunctioning robotic computer in Kubrick’s two thousand and one, a Space Odyssey, but that was fiction. We deal with fact. Lorna Brazell, a partner at the multinational law firm Osborne Clarke, says in the report, that we don’t give whales and gorillas personhood, so there is no need to jump at robotic personhood.

　　But the wariness is there. The report acknowledges the possibility that within the space of a few decades, AI could surpass human intellectual capacity, and challenge the human robot relationship. Finally, the report calls for the creation of a European agency for robotics and AI, that can provide technical, ethical, and regulatory expertise. If MEPs vote in favor of legislation, the report will go to the European Commission, which has three months to decide what legislative steps it will take.

　　We too, have a role to play in making sure the next generation has not just the opportunity, but the determination, to engage fully with the study of science at an early level, so that they can go on to fulfil their potential, and create a better world for the whole human race.

　　This is what I meant, when I was talking to you just now about the importance of learning and education. We need to take this beyond a theoretical discussion of how things should be, and take action, to make sure they have the opportunity to get on board. We stand on the threshold of a brave new world. It is an exciting, if precarious place to be, and you are the pioneers. I wish you well.

　　Chinese technology leaders, scientists, investors and web users raise questions to Prof. Hawking

　　Professor Hawking, we have learned so much from your insight.

　　Next I’m going to ask some questions. These are from Chinese scientists and entrepreneurs.

　　Kai-Fu Lee, CEO of Sinovation Ventures:

　　"The large internet companies have access to massive databases, which allows them to make huge strides in AI by violating user's privacy. These companies can’t truly discipline themselves as they are lured by huge economic interests. This vastly disproportionate access to data could cause small companies and startups to fail to innovate. You have mentioned numerous times that we should restrain artificial intelligence, but it’s much harder to restrain humans. What do you think we can do to restrain the large internet companies?"

　　As I understand it，the companies are using the data only for statistical purposes，but use of any personal information should be banned. It would help privacy, if all material on the internet, were encrypted by quantum cryptography with a code, that the internet companies could not break in a reasonable time. But the security services would object.

　　Professor, the second question is from Fu Sheng, CEO, Cheetah Mobile:

　　“Does the human soul exist as a form of quantum or another form of higher dimensional space?"

　　I believe that recent advances in AI, such as computers winning at chess and Go, show that there is no essential difference between the human brain and a computer. Contrary to the opinion of my colleague Roger Penrose. Would one say a computer has a soul. In my opinion, the notion of an individual human soul is a Christian concept, linked to the afterlife which I consider to be a fairy story.

　　Professor，the third question is from Ya-Qin Zhang, President, Baidu:

　　“The way human beings observe and abstract the universe is constantly evolving, from observation and estimation to Newton's law and Einstein’s equation , and now data-driven computation and AI . What is next”

　　We need a new quantum theory, which unifies gravity with the other forces of nature. Many people claim that it is string theory, but I have my doubts. So far about the only prediction is that space-time has ten dimensions.

　　Professor, the forth question is from Zhang Shoucheng , Professor of Physics, Stanford University:

　　“If you were to tell aliens about the highest achievements of our human civilization on the back of one envelope, what would you write ?”

　　It is no good telling aliens about beauty or any other possible art form that we might consider to be the highest artistic achievement，because these are very human specific. Instead I would write about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Fermat’s Last Theorem. These are things aliens would understand

　　The next question is from myself：

　　“We wish to promote the scientific spirit at all 9 GMIC conferences globally. What three books do you recommend technology leaders read to better understand the coming future and the science that is driving it?”

　　They should be writing books not reading them. One fully understands something only when one has written a book about it.

　　The next question is from Weibo user：

　　What is the one thing we should never do in life, and the one thing we should all do?

　　We should never give up, and we should all strive to understand as much as we can.

　　The next question is also from Weibo user：

　　“Human beings have experienced many evolutions ，for example, the Stone Age, the age of steam to the age of electricity. What do you think will drive the next evolution?”

　　Advances in computer science, including artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Technology already forms a major part of our lives but in the coming decades, it will permeate every aspect of our society .intelligently supporting and advising us in many areas , including healthcare work education and science. But we must make sure we control AI not it us.

　　Professor Hawking，the last question is from Hai Quan , Musician and VC:

　　“If the technology is not mature yet for interstellar immigrants, do human beings have unsolvable challenges that could lead to human extinction apart from external catastrophes like asteroid hitting earth?”

　　Yes. over-population, disease, war, famine, climate change and lack of water. It is within the power of man to solve these crises, but unfortunately these remain serious threats to our continued present on earth. These are all solvable, but so far have not been.

　　一、人工智能，要么是最好的，要么是最糟的

　　在我的一生中，我見證了很多社會深刻的變化。其中最深刻，同時也是對人類影響與日俱增的變化就是人工智能的崛起。

　　簡單來說，我認(rèn)為強(qiáng)大的人工智能的崛起，要么是人類歷史上最好的事，要么是最糟的。

　　是好是壞，我不得不說我們依然不能確定。但我們應(yīng)該竭盡所能，確保其未來發(fā)展對我們的后代和環(huán)境有利。

　　我們別無選擇。我認(rèn)為人工智能的發(fā)展，本身是一種存在著問題的趨勢，而這些問題必須在現(xiàn)在和將來得到解決。

　　人工智能的研究與開發(fā)正在迅速推進(jìn)。也許科學(xué)研究應(yīng)該暫停片刻，從而使研究重點從提升人工智能能力轉(zhuǎn)移到最大化人工智能的社會效益上面。

　　基于這樣的考慮，美國人工智能協(xié)會(AAAI)于2008至2009年，成立了人工智能長期未來總籌論壇。他們近期在目的導(dǎo)向的中性技術(shù)上投入了大量的關(guān)注。但人工智能系統(tǒng)的原則依然必須要按照我們的意志工作。

　　跨學(xué)科研究可能是一條可能的前進(jìn)道路：從經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律、哲學(xué)延伸至計算機(jī)安全、形式化方法，當(dāng)然還有人工智能本身的各個分支。

　　文明所提產(chǎn)生的一切都是人類智能的產(chǎn)物，我相信生物大腦總有一天會達(dá)到計算機(jī)可以達(dá)到的程度，沒有本質(zhì)區(qū)別。因此，它遵循了“計算機(jī)在理論上可以模仿人類智能，然后超越”這一原則。

　　但我們并不確定，所以我們無法知道我們將無限地得到人工智能的幫助，還是被藐視并被邊緣化，或者很可能被它毀滅。的確，我們擔(dān)心聰明的機(jī)器將能夠代替人類正在從事的工作，并迅速地消滅數(shù)以百萬計的工作崗位。

　　在人工智能從原始形態(tài)不斷發(fā)展，并被證明非常有用的同時，我也在擔(dān)憂這樣這個結(jié)果，即創(chuàng)造一個可以等同或超越人類的智能的人工智能：人工智能一旦脫離束縛，以不斷加速的狀態(tài)重新設(shè)計自身。

　　人類由于受到漫長的生物進(jìn)化的限制，無法與之競爭，將被取代。這將給我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來極大的破壞。未來，人工智能可以發(fā)展出自我意志，一個與我們沖突的意志。

　　很多人認(rèn)為人類可以在相當(dāng)長的時間里控制技術(shù)的發(fā)展，這樣我們就能看到人工智能可以解決世界上大部分問題的潛力。但我并不確定，盡管我對人類一貫持有樂觀的態(tài)度。

　　二、人工智能對社會所造成的影響，需要認(rèn)真調(diào)研

　　2015年1月份，我和科技企業(yè)家埃隆·馬斯克，以及許多其他的人工智能專家簽署了一份關(guān)于人工智能的公開信。目的是提倡就人工智能對社會所造成的影響，做認(rèn)真的調(diào)研。

　　在這之前，埃隆·馬斯克就警告過人們：超人類人工智能可能帶來不可估量的利益。但如果部署不當(dāng)，則可能給人類帶來相反的效果。我和他同在“生命未來研究所”擔(dān)任科學(xué)顧問委員會的職務(wù)，這是一個旨在緩解人類所面臨的存在風(fēng)險的組織。

　　之前提到的公開信也是由這個組織起草的。這個公開信號召展開可以阻止?jié)撛趩栴}的直接研究，同時也收獲人工智能帶給我們的潛在利益，同時致力于讓人工智能的研發(fā)人員更關(guān)注人工智能安全。

　　對于決策者和普通大眾來說，這封公開信內(nèi)容翔實，并非危言聳聽。人人都知道人工智能，我們認(rèn)為這一點非常重要。比如，人工智能具有根除疾患和貧困的潛力，但是研究人員必須能夠保證創(chuàng)造出可控的人工智能。

　　那封只有四段文字，題目為《應(yīng)優(yōu)先研究強(qiáng)大而有益的人工智能》的公開信，在其附帶的十二頁文件中對研究的優(yōu)先次序作了詳細(xì)的安排。

　　在過去的20年或更長時間里，人工智能一直專注于建設(shè)智能代理所產(chǎn)生的問題，即：在特定環(huán)境下可以感知并行動的各種系統(tǒng)。

　　智能是一個與統(tǒng)計學(xué)和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)相關(guān)的理性概念。通俗地講，這是一種能做出好的決定、計劃和推論的能力。基于這些工作，大量的整合和交叉孕育被應(yīng)用在人工智能、機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)、統(tǒng)計學(xué)、控制論、神經(jīng)科學(xué)以及其它領(lǐng)域。

　　共享理論框架的建立，結(jié)合數(shù)據(jù)的供應(yīng)和處理能力，在各種細(xì)分的領(lǐng)域取得了顯著的成功。

　　例如語音識別、圖像分類、自動駕駛、機(jī)器翻譯、步態(tài)運動和問答系統(tǒng)。

　　隨著這些領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展，從實驗室研究到有經(jīng)濟(jì)價值的技術(shù)形成了良性循環(huán)。哪怕很小的性能改進(jìn)，都會帶來巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，進(jìn)而鼓勵更長期、更偉大的投入和研究。目前人們廣泛認(rèn)同，人工智能的研究正在穩(wěn)步發(fā)展，而它對社會的影響很可能還在擴(kuò)大。

　　潛在的好處是巨大的，甚至文明所產(chǎn)生的一切，都可能是人類智能的產(chǎn)物。但我們無法預(yù)測我們會取得什么成果，這種成果可能是被人工智能工具放大過的。

　　正如我說的，根除疾病和貧窮并不是完全不可能，由于人工智能的巨大潛力，研究如何(從人工智能)獲益并規(guī)避風(fēng)險是非常重要的。

　　三、從短期和長期看人工智能

　　現(xiàn)在，關(guān)于人工智能的研究正在迅速發(fā)展，這一研究可以從短期和長期來分別討論。

　　短期擔(dān)憂:

　　1.無人駕駛。

　　從民用無人機(jī)到自主駕駛汽車。在緊急情況下，一輛無人駕駛汽車不得不在小風(fēng)險的大事故和大概率的小事故之間進(jìn)行選擇。

　　2.致命性智能自主武器。

　　它們是否該被禁止?如果是，那么“自主”該如何精確定義。如果不是，任何使用不當(dāng)和故障的過失應(yīng)該如何被問責(zé)。

　　3.隱私的擔(dān)憂。

　　由于人工智能逐漸開始解讀大量監(jiān)控數(shù)據(jù)，會造成隱私上的擔(dān)憂，以及如何管理因人工智能取代工作崗位帶來的經(jīng)濟(jì)影響。

　　長期擔(dān)憂主要是人工智能系統(tǒng)失控的潛在風(fēng)險。

　　隨著不遵循人類意愿行事的超級智能的崛起，強(qiáng)大的系統(tǒng)可能會威脅到人類發(fā)展。這種錯位是否會發(fā)生?如果會，那些情況是如何出現(xiàn)的?我們應(yīng)該投入什么樣的研究，以便更好的理解和解決危險的超級智能崛起的可能性，或智能爆發(fā)的出現(xiàn)?

　　當(dāng)前控制人工智能技術(shù)的工具，例如強(qiáng)化學(xué)習(xí)，簡單實用的功能，還不足以解決這系統(tǒng)失控的問題。因此，我們需要進(jìn)一步研究來找到和確認(rèn)一個可靠的解決辦法來掌控這一問題。

　　近來的里程碑，比如之前提到的自主駕駛汽車，以及人工智能贏得圍棋比賽，都是未來趨勢的跡象，巨大的投入傾注到這項科技。我們目前所取得的成就，和未來幾十年后可能取得的成就相比必然相形見絀。

　　而且我們遠(yuǎn)不能預(yù)測我們能取得什么成就。當(dāng)我們的頭腦被人工智能放大以后，也許在這種新技術(shù)革命的輔助下，我們可以解決一些工業(yè)化對自然界造成的損害。關(guān)乎到我們生活的各個方面都即將被改變。

　　簡而言之，人工智能的成功有可能是人類文明史上最大的事件。

　　但人工智能也有可能是人類文明史的終結(jié)，除非我們學(xué)會如何避免危險。我曾經(jīng)說過，人工智能的全方位發(fā)展可能招致人類的滅亡。比如最大化使用智能性自主武器。今年早些時候，我和一些來自世界各國的科學(xué)家共同在聯(lián)合國會議上支持其對于核武器的禁令。我們正在焦急的等待協(xié)商結(jié)果。

　　目前，九個核大國可以控制大約一萬四千個核武器，它們中的任何一個國家都可以將城市夷為平地，放射性廢物會大面積污染農(nóng)田，最可怕的危害是誘發(fā)核冬天，火和煙霧會導(dǎo)致全球的小冰河期。

　　這一結(jié)果使全球糧食體系崩塌，末日般動蕩，很可能導(dǎo)致大部分人死亡。我們作為科學(xué)家，對核武器承擔(dān)著特殊的責(zé)任。正是科學(xué)家發(fā)明了核武器，并發(fā)現(xiàn)它們的影響比最初預(yù)想的更加可怕。

　　我對人工智能的災(zāi)難探討可能驚嚇到了各位。很抱歉。但是作為今天的與會者，重要的是，在影響當(dāng)前技術(shù)的未來研發(fā)中，你們要清楚自己所處的位置。

　　我相信我們團(tuán)結(jié)在一起，來呼吁國際條約的支持或者簽署呈交給各國政府的公開信，科技領(lǐng)袖和科學(xué)家正極盡所能避免不可控的人工智能的崛起。

　　去年10月，我在英國劍橋建立了一個新的機(jī)構(gòu)，試圖解決一些在人工智能研究快速發(fā)展中出現(xiàn)的尚無定論的問題。“利弗休姆智能未來中心”是一個跨學(xué)科研究所，致力于研究智能的未來，這對我們文明和物種的未來至關(guān)重要。

　　過去我們花費大量時間學(xué)習(xí)歷史，雖然深入去看，可能大多數(shù)是關(guān)于愚蠢的歷史。所以現(xiàn)在人們轉(zhuǎn)而研究智能的未來，是令人欣喜的變化。

　　我們對潛在危險有所意識，我內(nèi)心仍秉持樂觀態(tài)度，我相信創(chuàng)造智能的潛在收益是巨大的。也許借助這項新技術(shù)革命的工具，我們將可以削減工業(yè)化對自然界造成的傷害。

　　我們生活的每一個方面都會被改變。我在研究所的同事休·普林斯承認(rèn)，“利弗休姆中心”能建立，部分是因為大學(xué)成立了“存量風(fēng)險中心”。后者更加廣泛地審視人類潛在問題，而“利弗休姆中心”的重點研究范圍則相對狹窄。

　　四、人工智能的最新進(jìn)展

　　人工智能的最新進(jìn)展，包括歐洲議會呼吁起草一系列法規(guī)，以管理機(jī)器人和人工智能的創(chuàng)新。令人些許驚訝的是，這里涉及到了一種形式的電子人格。以確保最有能力和最先進(jìn)的人工智能盡到其應(yīng)盡的權(quán)利和責(zé)任。

　　歐洲議會發(fā)言人評論說，隨著日常生活中越來越多的領(lǐng)域日益受到機(jī)器人的影響，我們需要確保機(jī)器人無論現(xiàn)在還是將來，都為人類而服務(wù)。

　　向歐洲議會議員提交的報告，明確認(rèn)為世界正處于新的工業(yè)機(jī)器人革命的前沿。報告中分析了是否應(yīng)該給機(jī)器人提供作為電子人的權(quán)利。這等同于法人(的身份)，也許有可能。

　　報告強(qiáng)調(diào)，在任何時候，研究和設(shè)計人員都應(yīng)確保每一個機(jī)器人設(shè)計都包含有終止開關(guān)。在庫布里克的電影《2001太空漫游》中，出故障的超級電腦哈爾沒有讓科學(xué)家們進(jìn)入太空艙，但那是科幻。我們要面對的則是事實。

　　奧斯本·克拉克跨國律師事務(wù)所的合伙人，洛納·布拉澤爾在報告中說，我們不承認(rèn)鯨魚和大猩猩有人格，所以也沒有必要急于接受一個機(jī)器人人格。但是擔(dān)憂一直存在。

　　報告承認(rèn)在幾十年的時間內(nèi)，人工智能可能會超越人類智力范圍，人工智能可能會超越人類智力范圍，進(jìn)而挑戰(zhàn)人機(jī)關(guān)系。

　　報告最后呼吁成立歐洲機(jī)器人和人工智能機(jī)構(gòu)，以提供技術(shù)、倫理和監(jiān)管方面的專業(yè)知識。如果歐洲議會議員投票贊成立法，該報告將提交給歐盟委員會。它將在三個月的時間內(nèi)決定要采取哪些立法步驟。

　　在人工智能發(fā)展進(jìn)程中，我們還應(yīng)該扮演一個角色，確保下一代不僅僅有機(jī)會還要有決心。在早期階段充分參與科學(xué)研究，以便他們繼續(xù)發(fā)揮潛力，幫助人類創(chuàng)造一個更加美好的的世界。這就是我剛談到學(xué)習(xí)和教育的重要性時，所要表達(dá)的意思。我們需要跳出“事情應(yīng)該如何”這樣的理論探討，并且采取行動，以確保他們有機(jī)會參與進(jìn)來。

　　我們站在一個美麗新世界的入口。這是一個令人興奮的、同時充滿了不確定性的世界，而你們是先行者。我祝福你們。