2 ms·
> Teaching ethics to a machine that is more intelligent than we are, in a wide range of fields, is a far more daunting task. ... but then ex-hypothesis, should
by ttctciyf 10y ago
> Teaching ethics to a machine that is more intelligent than we are, in a wide range of fields, is a far more daunting task.
... but then ex-hypothesis, shouldn't a human-plus intelligent machine be teaching us ethics, rather than the other way around?
To suppose otherwise is to assume there's something about ethics that's antithetical to machine intelligence, whereas (without a specific reason to the contrary) it might be reasonably held to be not unlike any other social/psychological knowledge domain which should be mastered to human+ level by the sort of AGI being talked about.
On the other hand, if by "teaching ethics to a machine" the article really means "ensuring the machine behaves in a way that we regard as meeting our ethical norms" (which isn't the same thing at all, obviously) then all bets are off: the machine's intelligence exceeding ours strongly implies (to me, anyway) our inability to predict its behaviour, so I'd agree that strong guarantees are at least problematic in this respect.
- thelamest 10y ago> the machine's intelligence exceeding ours strongly implies (to me, anyway) our inability to predict its behaviour Cognition and affect/motivation get conflated a lot in AI discussions. Motivations don't magically arise from intelligence. They are not just acquired in upbringing either. Affect is a separate and innate system that requires its own explicit hardwiring. There is some imprinting, conditioning and other fine tuning with experiential feedback, but the basic drives and reward rules (and morals) have to be there from the beginning. Otherwise the person, artificial or not, will be catatonic.