As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly complicated, there are growing concerns that robots could become a threat. This danger can be avoided, according to computer science professor Stuart Russell, if we figure out how to turn human values into a programmable code.

Russell argues that as robots take on more complicated tasks, it’ s necessary to translate our morals into AI language.

For example, if a robot does chores around the house, you wouldn’ t want it to put the pet cat in the oven to make dinner for the hungry children. “You would want that robot preloaded with a good set of values,” said Russell.

Some robots are already programmed with basic human values. For example, mobile robots have been programmed to keep a comfortable distance from humans. Obviously there are cultural differences, but if you were talking to another person and they came up close in your personal space, you wouldn’ t   think that’ s the kind of thing a properly brought-up person would do.

It will be possible to create more sophisticated moral machines, if only we can find a way to set out human values as clear rules.

Robots could also learn values from drawing patterns from large sets of data on human behavior. They are dangerous only if programmers are careless.

The biggest concern with robots going against human values is that human beings fail to do sufficient testing and they’ ve produced a system that will break some kind of taboo(禁忌).

One simple check would be to program a robot to check the correct course of action with a human when presented with an unusual situation.

If the robot is unsure whether an animal is suitable for the microwave, it has the opportunity to stop, send out beeps(嘟嘟声), and ask for directions from a human. If we humans aren’ t   quite sure about a decision, we go and ask somebody else.

The most difficult step in programming values will be deciding exactly what we believe in moral, and how to create a set of ethical (种族的)rules. But if we come up with an answer, robots could be good for humanity.

Oh, the places you’ll go!

When it comes to habitat, human beings are creatures of habit. It has been known for a long time that, whether his habitat is a village, a city or, for real globe-trotters (周游世界者), the planet itself, an individual person generally visits the same places regularly. The details, though, have been surprisingly obscure. Now, thanks to an analysis of data collected from 40,000 smartphone users around the world, a new property of humanity’s locomotive (移动的) habits has been revealed.

It turns out that someone’s “location capacity”, the number of places which he or she visits regularly, remains constant over periods of months and years. What constitutes a “place” depends on what distance between two places makes them separate. But analyzing movement patterns helps illuminate the distinction and the researchers found that the average location capacity was 25. If a new location does make its way into the set of places an individual tends to visit, an old one drops out in response. People do not, in other words, gather places like collector cards. Rather, they cycle through them. Their geographical behavior is limited and predictable, not fancy-free.

The study demonstrating this, just published in Nature Human Behavior, does not offer any explanation for the limited location capacity it measures. But a statistical analysis carried out by the authors shows that it cannot be explained solely by constraints on time. Some other factor is at work. One of the researchers draws an analogy. He suggests that people’s cognitive capacity limits the number of places they can visit routinely, just as it limits the number of other people an individual can routinely socialize with. That socialization figure, about 150 for most people, is known as the Dunbar number, after its discoverer, Robin Dunbar.

Lehmann says his group is now in search of similar data from other primates (灵长目动物), in an attempt to work out where human patterns of mobility have their roots. For those, though, they will have to rely on old-fashioned methods of zoological observation unless they can work out a way to get chimpanzees to carry smartphones.

Human activities are killing wildlife at unprecedented rates, with causes ranging from environmental pollution to the built environment. For some bird species, night-time collisions (撞击) with power lines are driving substantial population declines. 【小题1】 “We need forward-thinking methods to protect not only large birds that are at greater risk from power lines but also millions of smaller migratory birds,” says Anne Lacy of the International Crane Foundation.

Half of all avian species can see ultraviolet light. So James Dwyer, a wildlife biologist at utility consulting firm EDM International in Fort Collins, Colo., had the idea of using near-visible UV light to illuminate power lines. EDM’s engineering team and the Dawson Public Power District developed such light systems and installed them on a tower supporting a power line at Rowe Sanctuary.【小题2】

Richard Loughery, director of environmental activities at the Edison Electric Institute, who was not involved in the project, says the new UV system adds an important tool for use in hotspots where endangered bird species nest and feed.

【小题3】Insects did not swarm toward the lights, nor did bats or night-hawks do so in pursuit of a meal. And Dwyer says birds are unlikely to confuse such near-ground UV illumination with natural cues such as starlight.

“I don’t want utilities to build lines wherever they want because there’s a new tool,” says biologist Robert Harms of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, who was not involved in the work. 【小题4】