Peacekeeping Conditions for an Artificial Intelligence Society

Abstract

In a human society with emergent technology, the destructive actions of some pose a danger to the survival of all of humankind, increasing the need to maintain peace by overcoming universal conflicts. However, human society has not yet achieved complete global peacekeeping. Fortunately, a new possibility for peacekeeping among human societies using the appropriate interventions of an advanced system will be available in the near future. To achieve this goal, an artificial intelligence (AI) system must operate continuously and stably (condition 1) and have an intervention method for maintaining peace among human societies based on a common value (condition 2). However, as a premise, it is necessary to have a minimum common value upon which all of human society can agree (condition 3). In this study, an AI system to achieve condition 1 was investigated. This system was designed as a group of distributed intelligent agents (IAs) to ensure robust and rapid operation. Even if common goals are shared among all IAs, each autonomous IA acts on each local value to adapt quickly to each environment that it faces. Thus, conflicts between IAs are inevitable, and this situation sometimes interferes with the achievement of commonly shared goals. Even so, they can maintain peace within their own societies if all the dispersed IAs think that all other IAs aim for socially acceptable goals. However, communication channel problems, comprehension problems, and computational complexity problems are barriers to realization. This problem can be overcome by introducing an appropriate goal-management system in the case of computer-based IAs. Then, an IA society could achieve its goals peacefully, efficiently, and consistently. Therefore, condition 1 will be achievable. In contrast, humans are restricted by their biological nature and tend to interact with others similar to themselves, so the eradication of conflicts is more difficult.

The Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Conflict Resolution and Peacekeeping

“…While AI has the distinctive potential to revolutionize military strategies, ammunition systems, and operations, it simultaneously plays a pivotal role in enhancing international and domestic peace processes. As Yamakawa (2019) noted in his study, he explored the possibilities of using AI to achieve peacekeeping among human societies, which can be pivotal in maintaining peace. He proposed a universal AI-based system that can arbitrate conflicts in human societies by focusing on shared goals and common values.…”

Optimising peace through a Universal Global Peace Treaty to constrain the risk of war from a militarised artificial superintelligence

“…Finally, Yamakawa ( 2019 ) suggests an intelligent agent (IA) system for peacekeeping, reliant on interrelationships between diverse advanced national or regional IAs, suggesting three conditions are required, namely (i) continuous and stable operations, (ii) “an intervention method for maintaining peace among human societies based on a common value” and (iii) the minimum common value itself. This article proposes that world peace, by treaty, be the minimum common value, while the intervention method remains the UN Charter’s Article 2.…”

“…Finally, Turchin et al ( 2019 ) also consider global approaches: a ban, a one ASI solution, a net of ASIs policing each other (see also Yamakawa 2019 ), and augmented human intelligence. The ‘ban’ would naturally require a global treaty.…”

“…While some maintain an artificial general intelligence (AGI), i.e., human or above human artificial intelligence (AI), is impossible (Fjelland 2020 ), others believe an AGI is attainable (Goertzel and Pennachin 2020 ; Wang and Goertzel 2012 ). In the latter instance, that the world has not attained global peace is a risk factor for the development of an AGI (Yamakawa 2019 ). Consequently, the international defence community is beginning to consider the national security risk posed by AGI development and its implications for international relations (IR), including calls to act (De Spiegeleire et al 2017 :107).…”