众多学者对超级AIS接管世界的可能性进行了深入的研究。本文重点介绍了超级掌权的前提下的多ai竞争方案。首先，本文指出了支持单ai统治的现有参数的缺陷，并提出了有利于多AI竞争的论点。然后，文章得出结论，多AI竞争情况是不可忽略的可能性。然后，注意将多AI竞争比单个AI掌权的情况更好地对人类的整体利益更好。在分析了最佳，最坏和中间场景之后，该文章得出结论，多AI竞争对人类更有利。最后，考虑到与多个AI的最佳情况相关的因素，该文章对AI开发中当前的计划提出了一些建议。

如果未来的AI系统在新的情况下是可靠的安全性，那么他们将需要纳入指导它们的一般原则，以便强烈地认识到哪些结果和行为将是有害的。这样的原则可能需要得到约束力的监管制度的支持，该法规需要广泛接受的基本原则。它们还应该足够具体用于技术实施。本文从法律中汲取灵感，解释了负面的人权如何履行此类原则的作用，并为国际监管制度以及为未来的AI系统建立技术安全限制的基础。

人工智能（AI）有可能极大地改善社会，但是与任何强大的技术一样，它的风险和责任也增加。当前的AI研究缺乏有关如何管理AI系统（包括投机性长期风险）的长尾风险的系统讨论。请记住，AI可能是提高人类的长期潜力不可或缺的一部分，人们担心建立更聪明，更强大的AI系统最终可能会导致比我们更强大的系统。有人说这就像玩火，并推测这可能会造成生存风险（X风险）。为了增加这些讨论，我们回顾了来自危害分析和系统安全的时间测试概念的集合，这些概念旨在将大型流程引导到更安全的方向上。然后，我们讨论AI研究人员如何对AI系统的安全产生长期影响。最后，我们讨论如何稳健地塑造将影响安全和一般能力之间平衡的过程。

根据1,870家公司的Rackspace技术的最近调查，总共34％的AI研究和开发项目失败或被遗弃。我们提出了一项新的战略框架，Aistrom，使管理者基于彻底的文献综述，创建一个成功的AI战略。这提供了一种独特而综合的方法，可以通过实施过程中的各种挑战引导经理和牵头开发人员。在Aistrom框架中，我们首先识别顶部N潜在项目（通常为3-5）。对于每个人，彻底分析了七个重点区域。这些领域包括创建一个数据策略，以考虑独特的跨部门机器学习数据要求，安全性和法律要求。然后，Aistrom指导经理思考如何鉴于AI人才稀缺的跨学科人工智能（AI）实施团队。一旦建立了AI团队战略，它需要在组织内，跨部门或作为单独的部门定位。其他考虑因素包括AI作为服务（AIAAS）或外包开发。看着新技术，我们必须考虑偏见，黑匣子模型的合法性等挑战，并保持循环中的人类。接下来，与任何项目一样，我们需要基于价值的关键性能指标（KPI）来跟踪和验证进度。根据公司的风险策略，SWOT分析（优势，劣势，机会和威胁）可以帮助进一步分类入住项目。最后，我们应该确保我们的战略包括持续的雇员的持续教育，以实现采用文化。这种独特综合的框架提供了有价值的，经理和铅开发商的工具。

有大量且不断增长的证据和文学探索人工智能（AI）技术对整个社会，政治和人类的影响。单独的平行工作已经探索了人类的存在风险，包括但不限于非对齐的人工通用智能（AGI）的风险。在本文中，我们认为当前和近期人工智能技术有可能通过充当中间风险因素来促进存在风险的观念，并且这种潜力不仅限于不规则的AGI场景。我们提出这样的假设，即AI的某些已经记录的影响可以充当存在的风险因素，从而放大了先前确定的存在风险来源的可能性。此外，即使在没有人工通用智能的情况下，未来十年的未来发展也有可能极大地加剧这些危险因素。我们的主要贡献是对潜在的AI风险因素以及它们之间的因果关系的（非排斥）的解释，重点是AI如何影响电力动态和信息安全。该博览会表明，从AI系统到没有假设未来AI能力的存在风险存在因果途径。

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final, and much-anticipated, cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

2021年8月，圣达菲研究所举办了一个关于集体智力的研讨会，是智力项目基础的一部分。该项目旨在通过促进智能性质的跨学科研究来推进人工智能领域。该研讨会汇集了计算机科学家，生物学家，哲学家，社会科学家和其他人，以分享他们对多种代理人之间的互动产生的洞察力的见解 - 是否这些代理商是机器，动物或人类。在本报告中，我们总结了每个会谈和随后的讨论。我们还借出了许多关键主题，并确定未来研究的重要前沿。

部署的AI系统通常不起作用。它们可以随意地构造，不加选择地部署并欺骗性地促进。然而，尽管有这一现实，但学者，新闻界和决策者对功能的关注很少。这导致技术和政策解决方案的重点是“道德”或价值一致的部署，通常会跳过先前的问题，即给定系统功能或完全提供任何好处。描述各种功能失败的危害，我们分析一组案例研究，以创建已知的AI功能问题的分类法。然后，我们指出的是政策和组织响应，这些策略和组织响应经常被忽略，并在功能成为重点后变得更容易获得。我们认为功能是一项有意义的AI政策挑战，是保护受影响社区免受算法伤害的必要第一步。

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

在这一荟萃术中，我们探索了道德人工智能（AI）设计实施的三个不同角度，包括哲学伦理观点，技术观点和通过政治镜头进行框架。我们的定性研究包括一篇文献综述，该综述通过讨论前面发表的对比度上下，自下而上和混合方法的价值和缺点，突出了这些角度的交叉引用。对该框架的小说贡献是政治角度，该角度构成了人工智能中的道德规范，要么由公司和政府决定，并通过政策或法律（来自顶部）强加于人，或者是人民要求的道德（从底部出现） ，以及自上而下，自下而上和混合技术，即AI在道德构造和考虑到其用户中的发展方式以及对世界的预期和意外后果和长期影响。作为自下而上的应用技术方法和AI伦理原则作为一种实际的自上而下方法，重点是强化学习。这项调查包括现实世界中的案例研究，以基于历史事实，当前的世界环境以及随之而来的现实，就AI的伦理和理论未来的思想实验进行了有关AI伦理和理论未来思想实验的哲学辩论。

讨论了与科学，工程，建筑和人为因素相关的月球表面上的运输设施问题。未来十年制造的后勤决策可能对财务成功至关重要。除了概述一些问题及其与数学和计算的关系外，本文还为决策者，科学家和工程师提供了有用的资源。

虽然道德人工智能（AI）系统的需求增加，但AI加速的不道德使用的数量，即使没有道德准则不足。我们认为这是一个可能的潜在的原因是，AI开发人员在AI发展伦理中面临社会困境，防止了对道德最佳实践的广泛适应。我们为AI开发的社交困境定义了社会困境，并描述了为什么无法解决AI开发道德的当前危机，而无需缓解其社交困境的AI开发人员。我们认为AI开发必须专业为克服社会困境，并讨论如何在此过程中用作模板。

Artificial intelligence is not only increasingly used in business and administration contexts, but a race for its regulation is also underway, with the EU spearheading the efforts. Contrary to existing literature, this article suggests, however, that the most far-reaching and effective EU rules for AI applications in the digital economy will not be contained in the proposed AI Act - but have just been enacted in the Digital Markets Act. We analyze the impact of the DMA and related EU acts on AI models and their underlying data across four key areas: disclosure requirements; the regulation of AI training data; access rules; and the regime for fair rankings. The paper demonstrates that fairness, in the sense of the DMA, goes beyond traditionally protected categories of non-discrimination law on which scholarship at the intersection of AI and law has so far largely focused on. Rather, we draw on competition law and the FRAND criteria known from intellectual property law to interpret and refine the DMA provisions on fair rankings. Moreover, we show how, based on CJEU jurisprudence, a coherent interpretation of the concept of non-discrimination in both traditional non-discrimination and competition law may be found. The final part sketches specific proposals for a comprehensive framework of transparency, access, and fairness under the DMA and beyond.

随着各种公开的AI伦理原则的共识，差距仍然可以随时采用设计和开发负责任的AI系统。我们研究了来自澳大利亚国家科学研究机构（CSIRO）的研究人员和工程师的实践和经验，他们参与设计和开发AI系统的一系列目的。半结构化访谈用于检查参与者的做法如何与澳大利亚政府提出的一套高级AI伦理原则涉及并对齐。原则包括：隐私保护和安全，可靠性和安全性，透明度和解释性，公平性，竞争性，责任，人以人为本的价值观和人类，社会与环境福祉。研究了研究人员和工程师的见解以及在原则的实际应用中为它们提供的挑战。最后，提供了一系列组织响应，以支持实施高级AI道德原则。

虽然AI有利于人类，但如果没有适当发展，它也可能会损害人类。 HCI工作的重点是从与非AI计算系统的传统人类交互转换，以与AI系统交互。我们在HCI视角下开展了高级文献综述，对当前工作的整体分析。我们的审核和分析突出了AI技术引入的新变更以及HCI专业人员在AI系统开发中应用人以人为本的AI（HCAI）方法时，新挑战的新挑战。我们还确定了与AI系统人类互动的七个主要问题，其中HCI专业人员在开发非AI计算系统时没有遇到。为了进一步实现HCAI方法的实施，我们确定了与特定的HCAI驱动的设计目标相关的新的HCI机会，以指导HCI专业人员解决这些新问题。最后，我们对当前HCI方法的评估显示了这些方法支持开发AI系统的局限性。我们提出了可以帮助克服这些局限性的替代方法，并有效帮助HCI专业人员将HCAI方法应用于AI系统的发展。我们还为HCI专业人员提供战略建议，以有效影响利用HCAI方法的AI系统的发展，最终发展HCAI系统。

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

We argue that the attempt to build morality into machines is subject to what we call the Interpretation problem, whereby any rule we give the machine is open to infinite interpretation in ways that we might morally disapprove of, and that the interpretation problem in Artificial Intelligence is an illustration of Wittgenstein's general claim that no rule can contain the criteria for its own application. Using games as an example, we attempt to define the structure of normative spaces and argue that any rule-following within a normative space is guided by values that are external to that space and which cannot themselves be represented as rules. In light of this problem, we analyse the types of mistakes an artificial moral agent could make and we make suggestions about how to build morality into machines by getting them to interpret the rules we give in accordance with these external values, through explicit moral reasoning and the presence of structured values, the adjustment of causal power assigned to the agent and interaction with human agents, such that the machine develops a virtuous character and the impact of the interpretation problem is minimised.

本章讨论了数据组织自动化过程的棱镜的AI，并举例说明了解释性能够在从当前的AI系统中移动到下一个系统的作用，其中人类的作用被从中抬起数据注释器为使用AI系统工作的AI系统。

Digital engineering transformation is a crucial process for the engineering paradigm shifts in the fourth industrial revolution (4IR), and artificial intelligence (AI) is a critical enabling technology in digital engineering transformation. This article discusses the following research questions: What are the fundamental changes in the 4IR? More specifically, what are the fundamental changes in engineering? What is digital engineering? What are the main uncertainties there? What is trustworthy AI? Why is it important today? What are emerging engineering paradigm shifts in the 4IR? What is the relationship between the data-intensive paradigm and digital engineering transformation? What should we do for digitalization? From investigating the pattern of industrial revolutions, this article argues that ubiquitous machine intelligence (uMI) is the defining power brought by the 4IR. Digitalization is a condition to leverage ubiquitous machine intelligence. Digital engineering transformation towards Industry 4.0 has three essential building blocks: digitalization of engineering, leveraging ubiquitous machine intelligence, and building digital trust and security. The engineering design community at large is facing an excellent opportunity to bring the new capabilities of ubiquitous machine intelligence and trustworthy AI principles, as well as digital trust, together in various engineering systems design to ensure the trustworthiness of systems in Industry 4.0.

保证案件提出了一个明确且可辩护的论点，并得到证据支持，即系统将按照特定情况下的意图运行。通常，保证案例提出了一个论点，即系统在其预期的上下文中将是安全的。值得信赖的AI研究社区中的一项新兴建议是扩展和应用这种方法，以保证使用AI系统或自治系统（AI/AS）在特定情况下将是可接受的道德。在本文中，我们进一步提出了这一建议。我们通过为AI/AS提供基于原则的道德保证（PBEA）论点模式来做到这一点。 PBEA参数模式为推理给定AI/AS的整体道德可接受性提供了一个框架，它可能是特定道德保证案例的早期原型模板。构成PBEA论证模式基础的四个核心道德原则是：正义；福利；非遗憾；并尊重个人自主权。在整个过程中，我们将参数模式的阶段连接到AI/作为应用程序的示例。这有助于显示其最初的合理性。