6 ms·

Is OpenAI willing to support true AI having basic rights to given to humans? If so, why is this not one of the fundamental technical goals? If not, why?

by nxzero 10y ago

jimfleming 10y ago
You should have a look a PETRL[0]: People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners :) [0] http://petrl.org/ http://petrl.org/
- castis 10y ago
  That was way more of an interesting read that I thought it was going to be. Thanks for posting that.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
I would argue that we should avoid building sentient AI in the first place. Human-level or better problem-solving ability does not require the inclusion of sentience or independent agency.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Then I assume you're against any tech that would allow brains to be digitized, right?
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    Not at all; I'm incredibly in favor of doing so, and I would argue that a human mind running in a computer is still unambiguously human. The hard part comes in defining when a computer has reached that point. I'm arguing that we shouldn't develop computer AI that comes anywhere close to needing to answer that question; we don't need that to solve the problems that AI can solve.
    - nxzero 10y ago
      Why would it be undesirable for AI to have the capabilities you described, but desirable for a digitized brain to have them?
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        > Why would it be undesirable for AI to have the capabilities you described Precisely because of the ethical questions. I want problem-solving AIs to work on all the problems humanity needs solved, starting with "humans die" and then going on to lower-priority problems. I don't want AI to have goals and values of its own, which might potentially diverge from those of humans; I want it to serve humanity's goals and values. We can build a system capable of human-level problem-solving and well beyond, without actually creating a sentient being. If, and that's a big if, we want to create an artificial sentient being, that's a separate problem with its own set of ethical concerns; that seems both more dangerous and far less useful than human-level problem-solving. (In the event we did create such a being, such a being would absolutely need to have the same rights as humans or any other sentient species; I'd just rather avoid having to define and draw such a line, and get distracted by the fight over that, when it'd be far more useful to have machines capable of solving problems.) > but desirable for a digitized brain to have them? I hope the value of preserving human life is self-evident. Humans already have those qualities and many more; I want to see human life last forever, with all its qualities.
        nxzero 10y ago
        Digitized-humans goals would potientally diverge bio-humans too. For that matter, goals of humanity in general is pretty divergent. Divergence is good, not bad.
        drdeca 10y ago
        Not all divergence is good. Optimizing for [the elimination of all entities which have an idea of good], would be bad, and would be very different.

Is OpenAI willing to support true AI having basic rights to given to humans? If so, why is this not one of the fundamental technical goals? If not, why?

by nxzero 10y ago

Is OpenAI willing to support true AI having basic rights to given to humans? If so, why is this not one of the fundamental technical goals? If not, why?

jimfleming 10y ago

You should have a look a PETRL[0]: People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners :) [0] http://petrl.org/ http://petrl.org/

castis 10y ago
That was way more of an interesting read that I thought it was going to be. Thanks for posting that.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

I would argue that we should avoid building sentient AI in the first place. Human-level or better problem-solving ability does not require the inclusion of sentience or independent agency.

nxzero 10y ago
Then I assume you're against any tech that would allow brains to be digitized, right?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Not at all; I'm incredibly in favor of doing so, and I would argue that a human mind running in a computer is still unambiguously human. The hard part comes in defining when a computer has reached that point. I'm arguing that we shouldn't develop computer AI that comes anywhere close to needing to answer that question; we don't need that to solve the problems that AI can solve.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Why would it be undesirable for AI to have the capabilities you described, but desirable for a digitized brain to have them?
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      > Why would it be undesirable for AI to have the capabilities you described Precisely because of the ethical questions. I want problem-solving AIs to work on all the problems humanity needs solved, starting with "humans die" and then going on to lower-priority problems. I don't want AI to have goals and values of its own, which might potentially diverge from those of humans; I want it to serve humanity's goals and values. We can build a system capable of human-level problem-solving and well beyond, without actually creating a sentient being. If, and that's a big if, we want to create an artificial sentient being, that's a separate problem with its own set of ethical concerns; that seems both more dangerous and far less useful than human-level problem-solving. (In the event we did create such a being, such a being would absolutely need to have the same rights as humans or any other sentient species; I'd just rather avoid having to define and draw such a line, and get distracted by the fight over that, when it'd be far more useful to have machines capable of solving problems.) > but desirable for a digitized brain to have them? I hope the value of preserving human life is self-evident. Humans already have those qualities and many more; I want to see human life last forever, with all its qualities.
      - nxzero 10y ago
        Digitized-humans goals would potientally diverge bio-humans too. For that matter, goals of humanity in general is pretty divergent. Divergence is good, not bad.
        drdeca 10y ago
        Not all divergence is good. Optimizing for [the elimination of all entities which have an idea of good], would be bad, and would be very different.