 Cave suggests all of the following ways for preventing a loss of control over AI EXCEPT:
The Centre for the Future of Intelligence is seeking to investigate the implications of artificial intelligence for humanity, and make sure humans take advantage of the opportunities while dodging the risks. Because no single discipline is ideally suited to this task, the centre emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge-sharing and collaboration. It is bringing together a diverse community of some of the world's best researchers, philosophers, psychologists, lawyers and computer scientists. Harry Armstrong, head of futures at Nesta, which publishes The Long + Short, spoke with Cave about the impact of AI. Stephen Cave: Thinking about the impact of AI is not something that any one discipline owns or does in any very systematic way. That means bringing together the technologists and the experts at developing these algorithms together with social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and so forth. The current dominant political and economic ideologies, along with growing isolationist sentiment, runs contrary to the bipartisan, collaborative approaches needed to solve global issues like climate change. With AI, that has been the case so far; although not on the same scale. AI companies, and in particular the big tech companies, are very concerned that this won't go like climate change, but rather it will go like GMOs: that people will have a gut reaction to this technology as soon as the first great swathe of job losses take hold. And that a broad buy-in by society into some kind of vision of the future in which this technology plays a role is required, if a dangerous – or to them dangerous – counteraction is to be avoided. One of the dominant narratives around not only AI but technology and automation more generally is that we, as humans, are at the mercy of technological progress. There can be a bit of a conflict between being impacted by what's happening and having some sort of control over what we want to happen. No one individual can do much about it, other than adapt. These things are within the realms of what is feasible, and I think will help to shape the future. One of the problems with intervention, generally, is that we cannot control the course of events. We can attempt to, but we don't know how things are going to evolve. There are often unforeseen consequences that can derail a project. We can try to imagine how things might go very badly wrong, and then work hard to develop systems that will stop that from happening.
 developing an automatic shutdown option for AI that goes awry
 developing an automatic shutdown option for AI that goes awry  maintaining a system of accountable design  engaging in interdisciplinary conversations  anticipating problems that may arise from technology