8 ms·

Artificial intelligence will do what we ask, and that's a problem

92 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

mellosouls 7y ago
This is fine for AI tools that aren't remotely intelligent like the ones over-hyped today; but for any hypothesised AGI, the idea of programming it to be fundamentally constrained by updated Asimov laws is naive, technically stupid, and - in its implications of a sentient slave species - morally repugnant.
irrational 7y ago
I was expecting there to be an additional law or something. This doesn't seem to be an update, but a complete replacement.
c0restraint 7y ago
NOTE: Hacker News changed the title, so my comment might make less sense. The title was "Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics have been updated" 1. The machine’s only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. Not all humans are the same. How would a robot deal with incongruent preferences? Or cultural differences that conflict? 2. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. So am I... We often don't even know what our own preferences are. This has been studied. Given too many options of snow cone flavors, humans are less likely to even pick one! [0] 3. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. What?! The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind. Many people behave against their own intuition, best interests, or even their preferences, given the situation, peer pressure, or blackmail. This "rewrite" is less preferable to Asimov's. Humans are fallible. I wouldn't want a robot to follow our lead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
- automatoney 7y ago
  I definitely agree with your points, although I think this reframing of the problem from "we need to explicitly state what we want" to "we should teach robots to want to learn what we want" is at least conceptually very useful and interesting. I think the part about "robots could learn what Russell calls our meta-preferences: 'preferences about what kinds of preference-change processes might be acceptable or unacceptable.'" is what would be used to resolve preference conflict issues. People tend to be biased in consistent/similar ways so it doesn't seem implausible that a machine that could infer preference from action could take the extra step to infer circumstances affecting that preference.
- jotm 7y ago
  It works pretty well if you replace "human" with "the owners". Which is how any AI is/will be used, at least at first. A few people controlling most of them. Sort of like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. Millions of people use them, but they're only subservient to their owners and their preferences.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Agreed, humans are lazy, inefficient, and in the end massively limited by their biology. That's what ultimately stops bad preferences from going rouge and destroying the world (maybe). Imagine an AI that took on the preferences of a serial killer for instance, or an AI that takes on preferences of a genocidal warmongering culture.
- nradov 7y ago
  If the "Paradox of Choice" is even a real phenomenon (questionable social science) it certainly doesn't apply to snow cones. When the Kona Ice truck pulls up outside my kid's school they all go nuts for it. Not sure which flavor you want? Put all 10 in one cone!
merpnderp 7y ago
3. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. Great so the robot would see climate activist flying around in private jets pumping out several thousand times the average persons output, and promptly destroy the environment by assuming our actual goal is to destroy the environment with more CO2.
- colorincorrect 7y ago
  good point you raise: this statement is very behaviorist in leaning, and ignores human psychology, but perhaps this is to do with pragmatic reasons
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  That’s not the conclusion any sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from the facts.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    That's the conclusion that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from our behaviors. People act at odds to their stated and felt goals all the time, that's why "self control" is meaningful as a skill that different people have to different degrees.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The example behavior has a long term goal that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would deduce.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        plenty of human behavior is directly harmful and counter to long term goals.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
summerdown2 7y ago
This sounds like a terrible rewrite. If I can think of places they fail, surely real life can come up with more. Essentially, this would lead to either: a) The tyranny of the majority, or b) The tyranny of those with strong preferences. Let's say 51% of a population wants to get rid of the other 49% and wishes they were dead. What would stop the machine making it happen? Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the machines? Finally: > Still, Russell feels optimistic. Although more algorithms and game theory research are needed, he said his gut feeling is that harmful preferences could be successfully down-weighted by programmers ... so we're back to square one. We've created a learning machine that can come up with its own morality. But... we're going to have to down-weight certain behaviours just to be sure. Doesn't that simply recurse to: a) Down-weighting removes the learning, and b) We have to trust ourselves to correctly program and define the down-weighting.
- ben_w 7y ago
  > Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the machines? I’ve blogged about this recently. Morality, thy discount is hyperbolic: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality-thy-discount-is-hyperbolic/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality-th... Normalised, n-dimensional, utility monster: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised-n-dimensional-utility-monster/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised-... Disclaimer: although I do have a formal qualification in philosophy, I did not get a very good grade.
  - summerdown2 7y ago
    Cool! Have you seen this cartoon? It's something I remembered from way back, and finally found it again! http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569
jankotek 7y ago
I think authors do not understand basic rules of Asimovs universe. Robotics laws are unbreakable limits hardwired into every positronic brains. On top of those you can put some other programming (servant, mining machine, space ship...). It is not possible to create brain without those rules. Asimov universe explores machine learning, autonomous weapons, humanity etc using those principles. New proposed laws are just tautology, "do what people want". No limits, no orders... What should machine do if no people are around? Just sit idle? What if majority behaves in "wrong" way (vote extremist politician)? I would expect some other laws, for example there should be always an option for people to opt-out or leave country.
lopmotr 7y ago
This problem is already solved with humans, some of whom are also very intelligent and goal oriented. It's done by noticing when those rare individuals do things we don't want and formalizing our preference in law. So many people agree on the concept of respecting the law that we all cooperate to enforce it. The law is an ugly mess of rules made to plug gaps in itself as they were taken advantage of. Nobody could have worked it all out up front and programmed it into a robot. It evolved along with the intelligent humans it was meant to control. It's precarious though - if the majority of humans don't keep vigilantly maintaining it, an intelligent human might move too fast and gain enough power to take control of the updating of the law! Then we have something like a tyranny. Which can and does sometimes kill all the humans (within its influence) in pursuit of its goals. So as long as we don't let robots move too fast for us to notice what's happening, we should be able to just keep writing more and more laws for them to follow. Not moving too fast for us to keep an eye on them might be the first one!
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  The problem is "move slow" is itself a rule that is subject to violation, and "move fast" might be so fast that its nearly instantaneous in its catastrophe (say an AI that nukes the entire world)
justsomedood 7y ago
The argument at the beginning of the article includes YouTube recommendations front more extreme, but isn't the reason that happens because of these new proposed 3 laws?
fallous 7y ago
The only thing worse than the "evil" genie giving us exactly what we ask for is the genie that decides its inferences about our actual intents/wants/needs/motivations based purely on our behaviors matter more than what we intentionally express as our intents/wants/needs/motivations. The most obvious analogy, and I acknowledge the potentially controversial nature of it, is that of a date rapist attempting to defend their actions by pointing out the victim was dressed provocatively, gave all the "signals" that they wanted sex, and when they expressly said "no" the rapist knew from their prior behavior that they actually did want it (or had some inner heretofore unexpressed need for it). The true underlying motivation for such a rewrite of Asimov's laws lies in the paragraph that follows Russell's new list. "...developing innovative ways to clue AI systems in to our preferences, without ever having to specify those preferences." Perhaps he can start by ceasing to write and speak and instead clue in his audience to his preferences via behavior, since specifying them is somehow undesired. Asimov's Three Laws exist to place boundaries around the genie's means of achieving our wishes. Russell's laws remove not only the genie's boundaries to means but also lets the genie make the wish as well. After all, it knows better than you what you want.
- wmeredith 7y ago
  Perhaps a less controversial example would be the interpretation of the three laws by the antagonist in the film I, Robot from 2004. From wikipedia[0], "in [the antagonist robot's] understanding of the Three Laws, she has determined human activity will eventually cause humanity's extinction, and as the Three Laws prohibit her from letting that sort of thing happen, she rationalizes that restraining individual human behavior and sacrificing some humans will ensure humanity's survival" 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)#Plot
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Asimov explicitly added a Zeroth Law of Robotics when he bridged the Robot and Foundation series, although it's still commented that a robot actually killing someone is too much of a cognitive dissonance to bear. It's worth noting that most of Asimov's robot stories are him basically exploring the problems with the Three Laws; The Naked Sun is basically an entire novel showing how Three Laws robots can be capable of murder.
HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago
What is more immediate problem to solve: AI-to-Zuck or AI+Zuck alignment? 1) AI-to-Zuck alignment problem: Align AI to it's master(s). 2) AI+Zuck alignment problem: Align AI and it's master(s) to the rest of the humanity. Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any tech billionaire CEO, corporation or governing body, could be people running OpenAI, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, China or Pentagon. 2) seems like the problem for humanity and 1) as the problem for Zuck.
- ifdefdebug 7y ago
  > Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any (...) Very badly chosen variable name, because it singles out one special case instead of reflecting the broader concept, which could confuse other devs picking up from here. It's like defining a variable that stands for "vegetable" and naming it "carrot".
  - whichquestion 7y ago
    Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Zuck is an instance of the CEO/Tech Billionaire/Governing Body/Corporation/PotentialAIMaster object.
  - HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago
    It's bad in the same sense as "No true Scotsman" singles out the Scotsmen. Selecting easy to remember overly specific representatives is just way human mind works.
- dogdawg 7y ago
  Have you seen videos of Zuck? AI+Zuck alignment is already the de-facto case. The question is how do we move beyond that to a post AI world.
jacknews 7y ago
this moves the conversation from 'arabian nights' to 'the tempest' then what?
dang 7y ago
The submitted title ("Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics have been updated") broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) Cherry-picking a detail from an article and putting it in the HN title is the quintessential kind of editorializing. Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion. It also causes comments to make less sense when moderators come along and revert the title, as we've done here. Submitting a story on HN doesn't convey any special right to frame it for other readers. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, please do that in the comments. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  I’m sorry. You’re correct. I got carried away by the Asimov connection.
- aray 7y ago
  > Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion. I haven't thought about this before on HN, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm curious if you or others have written about this intuition and your experience with it -- I'd like to understand it more.
  - dang 7y ago
    I've written about it in comments over the years. You might find some interesting cases in there: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20threads%20initial&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... It's one of the more reliable phenomena we observe on HN.
sebringj 7y ago
Is there such a set of rules/traits that are being defined to be maximized? I remember Elon saying to "maximize human freedom" as a goal but I could be out of context or misquoting.
6d6b73 7y ago
I don't know how any one can believe that AI will be so smart that it can turn the entire world into paperclips yet so stupid that it won't know that it's a bad idea.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Intelligence and what you do with it are orthogonal concepts.
- Rury 7y ago
  Yeah I know what you mean. Frankly, I feel there's major problems behind the concepts of AI and even intelligence itself - and it's difficult to articulate why. It’s as if these terms require aggrandizing to the point of impossibility or they lose all their apparent meaning. Which is why I feel we'll never achieve what we call (Strong/General) AI, or if we do, we will find ways to be unimpressed by it...
myself248 7y ago
There's a 1946 sci-fi story called A Logic Named Joe, which nails this. AIs are programmed to do what people ask unless it's bad, and one day, that "unless" mechanism fails. Joe starts doing everything people ask of it. Stalking that would make Zuckerberg proud.... http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm
ridewinter 7y ago
The article's main example of an AI fail is YouTube's recommendation engine optimizing for extremist content. But it didn't seem to explain how "inverse reinforcement learning" would solve it - don't people's clicks already model their desires? Nothing in here seems to be an advancement towards AGI. I'm sure their robot can learn the optimal rules for driving in a simulator, but what about the unexpected in the real world? We don't even have a clue as to how human creativity actually works, much less how to make a creative machine (ie an AGI).
- fallous 7y ago
  In fact that example argues against Russell's third law. The recommendation engine is observing the user's behavior and inferring that watching a video means the user agrees with the video, and so starts an escalation until it sees a refusal to click/watch. Simply watching a video is not an expression of agreement nor an endorsement of the content. Any of us read articles and books with which we may disagree if for no other reason than to fully understand the opposing viewpoint, and this is no less true for videos, audio, etc etc. Want to know if the user actually likes the content? Ask them. Stop thinking that statistical inference is better or even equal to directly measured data from a specific entity, especially when dealing with qualitative concepts rather than quantitative.
  - ridewinter 7y ago
    Thanks. You should've written this article :)
Proven 7y ago
> Artificial intelligence will do what we ask, and that's a problem This article argues against the freedom of speech and other property rights. AI ought to do what we ask and that is why it's not a problem - the creator/owner should be held responsible for damage it causes. > YouTube’s engineers probably didn’t intend to radicalize humanity. It doesn't matter what they intend, it matters what you intend. Do you intend to radicalize yourself? If not, why do you watch that crap?
Gusen 7y ago
Jerrold Nadler & Adam Schiff raped & killed boys on 14Jan2O19. President Trump did the same earlier that morning in Buffalo, USA. Listen to each of them do this here. How did Schiff & Nadler become "impeachment managers" for Trump's "impeachment"? $1O5+billion in payoffs. See page 9,13,21-47,85, 131 \\se.push();\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty! See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ? Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. \\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF last updated 30th Jan 2O2O: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W2qxVc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W... All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey). President Donald Trump: Demands a $4 billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4tJan2019: 3JanCh3_900-1100.avikmnklrt rrt https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... 3JanCh2_900-1100-avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24fY0vBB/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24f... 3JanCh4_1000-1100.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJojHge/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJ... President Trump rapes and kills twelve boys, including five boys in a "who can rape five boys to death the fastest" game: 14JanCh3_600.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj258zB/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj... 14JanCh2_600-700.mp3 ckirnhcioniore https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_Lw_gCF/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_L... Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: Accepting a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterrey" undocumented to be raped: 17JanCh3_949-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1CZUvmE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C... 17JanCh4_1017-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZNjDmnk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN... Speaker Nancy Pelosi also "preps" boys with First Lady Melania Trump, defined as in she performs oral sex on the boys’ penis and anus, as a child rapist like Henry Porter would, while trying to remove fecal matter from the boy prior to handing them over to be raped and then subsequently murdered, for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who apparently decides he would rather just have ten billion dollars instead. US Attorney for Western New York James Kennedy rapes these boys instead: 12JanCh3_1533-1638.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AgFkDsbPbI4b5Xd3Wbz2EVNNx25kW2Oz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AgFkDsbPbI4b5Xd3Wbz2EVNNx25... Attorney General William Barr with FBI Deputy Director Christopher Wray raped and killed boys for billions in bribes in Buffalo, New York, USA on the 17Jan2019 at 7:50am: 18JanCh4_700mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIdZkS5ZVksZdHYsnHk2t5losi0N0Bp7/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIdZkS5ZVksZdHYsnHk2t5losi0... 18JanCh2_700.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFK8IAxm5pQVqZv9L518nfgP7_odB2Um/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFK8IAxm5pQVqZv9L518nfgP7_o... 18JanCh3_725-.mp3gd https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DG5ej59Ic8RT9UhbyMdwT0BDcKIifGGm/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DG5ej59Ic8RT9UhbyMdwT0BDcKI... Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan each raped and killed boys on 5thJan'19 at 17:39 for billions in bribes: jkswjnefvr cefe_0 5JanCh3_1600 1800.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghgmNrQvJ8WfJ2TsDVx1ruDU36hrhx6S/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghgmNrQvJ8WfJ2TsDVx1ruDU36h... 5JanCh2_1721-1818.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSlD4otX4KZqWXboQM92Mu-6J02Mjwrg/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSlD4otX4KZqWXboQM92Mu-6J02... Leaders of the "impeachment" effort Jerrold Nadler, Robert Mueller, and Adam Schiff all rape and kill boys between 11:20pm and 1:10am: 14JanCh4_2300-0000.mp3 Nadler starts at about twenty mins in- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kuvv2Zmbw5Jw7onbRI2hCZ0M8FU66GuU/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kuvv2Zmbw5Jw7onbRI2hCZ0M8FU... 14JanCh2_2304-2359.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nofp5xF-aXXcCSgQVwj30KlzE9WLr1x1/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nofp5xF-aXXcCSgQVwj30KlzE9W... Mueller at 12:25am, next is Schiff who starts 12:55-ish: 15JanCh2_000-100.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EsmHfguwBuo2PbavJ1WYyhiML62tgCkj/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EsmHfguwBuo2PbavJ1WYyhiML62... 15JanCh2_100-200.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZnWRnBryalNQu2yJmfJUdS2pA_rGSFH/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZnWRnBryalNQu2yJmfJUdS2pA_... 15JanCh4_000-100.mp3 jklncrklo https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZEDJR6jb6ARpcNnWJTokBUKb2J2OQnwZ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZEDJR6jb6ARpcNnWJTokBUKb2J2... 15JanCh4_100-200.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/173aYWvWHH4VGht1h_2nM0IMdw746LeCL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/173aYWvWHH4VGht1h_2nM0IMdw74... Complete Media Protection: Lester Holt, of NBC NightlyNews, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 1980's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo, New York on 14Jan2019 at 5:00 am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00 am. Muir starts around 5.15am, then Holt about 5:38 am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp and also Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500-601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... Adding to the media protection and reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS and Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape and kill boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700-800.aviji8o8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... 16Op PDF [last updated: Jan|3O|2O2O]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W2qxVc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W... \\. Please repost in USA! Post gets censored in US vernhon olmnf5. Bidoned, overmgvpoe. Recently more relevant: From page 49, Senator Mitch McConnell: At 1632 Senator Mitch McConnell checks into the Porter camera system inquiring if he can be part of the "eviction" for $10 million dollars. He is informed by group members that there are enough people for the event already and his participation is not necessary. At 1634 McConnell states "I fucked 15 kids, how am I not getting paid by you?" He is dismissed by Donald Reeves with "I think that will be all Mr. McConnell." 13JanCh3_1600-1700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7bqOpvaEWmLiJpMhJNQDrfsQAHtsX8-/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7bqOpvaEWmLiJpMhJNQDrfsQAH...
Isamu 7y ago
>In his recent book, Human Compatible, Russell lays out his thesis in the form of three “principles of beneficial machines,” echoing Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics from 1942, but with less naivete. It is a recent trend to brush off Isaac Asimov's laws without an actual critique. Which betrays a lack of concrete thought in the matter. It's not that Asimov's laws are flawless, but that countering them seems easier than it really is. I have seen various bad, hand-wave dismissals but I can't recall any careful critiques. I have the new book, Human Compatible, and I buy Russell's argument but note that his rules are much more abstract, and therefore it is perhaps harder to counter.
- Shorel 7y ago
  Just read the Asimov novels that introduce the rules. Every single one of them fails in dramatic ways and that's what drives the story forward.
foreverloop 7y ago
Not really a comment super relevant to the article in the post, but seems to touch on some interesting subjects and probably a good conversation starter: one of the videos by Isaac Arthur - Technological Singularity ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro )
darepublic 7y ago
The whole evil genie thing is pretty unlikely imo. You're postulating an AI that is too stupid to not understand that it shouldn't take your wishes in some dead literal sense (make my home eco friendly => bulldoze it and plant some trees) but also do intelligent that it can summon the resources and make those idle wishes come true in a terrible grandiose way. There are many dangers around AI but this particular popular fantasy is not well thought out.

92 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

This is fine for AI tools that aren't remotely intelligent like the ones over-hyped today; but for any hypothesised AGI, the idea of programming it to be fundamentally constrained by updated Asimov laws is naive, technically stupid, and - in its implications of a sentient slave species - morally repugnant.

irrational 7y ago

I was expecting there to be an additional law or something. This doesn't seem to be an update, but a complete replacement.

c0restraint 7y ago

NOTE: Hacker News changed the title, so my comment might make less sense. The title was "Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics have been updated" 1. The machine’s only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. Not all humans are the same. How would a robot deal with incongruent preferences? Or cultural differences that conflict? 2. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. So am I... We often don't even know what our own preferences are. This has been studied. Given too many options of snow cone flavors, humans are less likely to even pick one! [0] 3. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. What?! The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind. Many people behave against their own intuition, best interests, or even their preferences, given the situation, peer pressure, or blackmail. This "rewrite" is less preferable to Asimov's. Humans are fallible. I wouldn't want a robot to follow our lead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

automatoney 7y ago
I definitely agree with your points, although I think this reframing of the problem from "we need to explicitly state what we want" to "we should teach robots to want to learn what we want" is at least conceptually very useful and interesting. I think the part about "robots could learn what Russell calls our meta-preferences: 'preferences about what kinds of preference-change processes might be acceptable or unacceptable.'" is what would be used to resolve preference conflict issues. People tend to be biased in consistent/similar ways so it doesn't seem implausible that a machine that could infer preference from action could take the extra step to infer circumstances affecting that preference.
jotm 7y ago
It works pretty well if you replace "human" with "the owners". Which is how any AI is/will be used, at least at first. A few people controlling most of them. Sort of like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. Millions of people use them, but they're only subservient to their owners and their preferences.
throwaway2048 7y ago
Agreed, humans are lazy, inefficient, and in the end massively limited by their biology. That's what ultimately stops bad preferences from going rouge and destroying the world (maybe). Imagine an AI that took on the preferences of a serial killer for instance, or an AI that takes on preferences of a genocidal warmongering culture.
nradov 7y ago
If the "Paradox of Choice" is even a real phenomenon (questionable social science) it certainly doesn't apply to snow cones. When the Kona Ice truck pulls up outside my kid's school they all go nuts for it. Not sure which flavor you want? Put all 10 in one cone!

merpnderp 7y ago

3. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. Great so the robot would see climate activist flying around in private jets pumping out several thousand times the average persons output, and promptly destroy the environment by assuming our actual goal is to destroy the environment with more CO2.

colorincorrect 7y ago
good point you raise: this statement is very behaviorist in leaning, and ignores human psychology, but perhaps this is to do with pragmatic reasons
KarlKemp 7y ago
That’s not the conclusion any sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from the facts.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  That's the conclusion that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from our behaviors. People act at odds to their stated and felt goals all the time, that's why "self control" is meaningful as a skill that different people have to different degrees.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The example behavior has a long term goal that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would deduce.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      plenty of human behavior is directly harmful and counter to long term goals.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago

summerdown2 7y ago

This sounds like a terrible rewrite. If I can think of places they fail, surely real life can come up with more. Essentially, this would lead to either: a) The tyranny of the majority, or b) The tyranny of those with strong preferences. Let's say 51% of a population wants to get rid of the other 49% and wishes they were dead. What would stop the machine making it happen? Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the machines? Finally: > Still, Russell feels optimistic. Although more algorithms and game theory research are needed, he said his gut feeling is that harmful preferences could be successfully down-weighted by programmers ... so we're back to square one. We've created a learning machine that can come up with its own morality. But... we're going to have to down-weight certain behaviours just to be sure. Doesn't that simply recurse to: a) Down-weighting removes the learning, and b) We have to trust ourselves to correctly program and define the down-weighting.

ben_w 7y ago
> Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the machines? I’ve blogged about this recently. Morality, thy discount is hyperbolic: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality-thy-discount-is-hyperbolic/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality-th... Normalised, n-dimensional, utility monster: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised-n-dimensional-utility-monster/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised-... Disclaimer: although I do have a formal qualification in philosophy, I did not get a very good grade.
- summerdown2 7y ago
  Cool! Have you seen this cartoon? It's something I remembered from way back, and finally found it again! http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569

jankotek 7y ago

I think authors do not understand basic rules of Asimovs universe. Robotics laws are unbreakable limits hardwired into every positronic brains. On top of those you can put some other programming (servant, mining machine, space ship...). It is not possible to create brain without those rules. Asimov universe explores machine learning, autonomous weapons, humanity etc using those principles. New proposed laws are just tautology, "do what people want". No limits, no orders... What should machine do if no people are around? Just sit idle? What if majority behaves in "wrong" way (vote extremist politician)? I would expect some other laws, for example there should be always an option for people to opt-out or leave country.

lopmotr 7y ago

This problem is already solved with humans, some of whom are also very intelligent and goal oriented. It's done by noticing when those rare individuals do things we don't want and formalizing our preference in law. So many people agree on the concept of respecting the law that we all cooperate to enforce it. The law is an ugly mess of rules made to plug gaps in itself as they were taken advantage of. Nobody could have worked it all out up front and programmed it into a robot. It evolved along with the intelligent humans it was meant to control. It's precarious though - if the majority of humans don't keep vigilantly maintaining it, an intelligent human might move too fast and gain enough power to take control of the updating of the law! Then we have something like a tyranny. Which can and does sometimes kill all the humans (within its influence) in pursuit of its goals. So as long as we don't let robots move too fast for us to notice what's happening, we should be able to just keep writing more and more laws for them to follow. Not moving too fast for us to keep an eye on them might be the first one!

throwaway2048 7y ago
The problem is "move slow" is itself a rule that is subject to violation, and "move fast" might be so fast that its nearly instantaneous in its catastrophe (say an AI that nukes the entire world)

justsomedood 7y ago

The argument at the beginning of the article includes YouTube recommendations front more extreme, but isn't the reason that happens because of these new proposed 3 laws?

fallous 7y ago

The only thing worse than the "evil" genie giving us exactly what we ask for is the genie that decides its inferences about our actual intents/wants/needs/motivations based purely on our behaviors matter more than what we intentionally express as our intents/wants/needs/motivations. The most obvious analogy, and I acknowledge the potentially controversial nature of it, is that of a date rapist attempting to defend their actions by pointing out the victim was dressed provocatively, gave all the "signals" that they wanted sex, and when they expressly said "no" the rapist knew from their prior behavior that they actually did want it (or had some inner heretofore unexpressed need for it). The true underlying motivation for such a rewrite of Asimov's laws lies in the paragraph that follows Russell's new list. "...developing innovative ways to clue AI systems in to our preferences, without ever having to specify those preferences." Perhaps he can start by ceasing to write and speak and instead clue in his audience to his preferences via behavior, since specifying them is somehow undesired. Asimov's Three Laws exist to place boundaries around the genie's means of achieving our wishes. Russell's laws remove not only the genie's boundaries to means but also lets the genie make the wish as well. After all, it knows better than you what you want.

wmeredith 7y ago
Perhaps a less controversial example would be the interpretation of the three laws by the antagonist in the film I, Robot from 2004. From wikipedia[0], "in [the antagonist robot's] understanding of the Three Laws, she has determined human activity will eventually cause humanity's extinction, and as the Three Laws prohibit her from letting that sort of thing happen, she rationalizes that restraining individual human behavior and sacrificing some humans will ensure humanity's survival" 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)#Plot
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Asimov explicitly added a Zeroth Law of Robotics when he bridged the Robot and Foundation series, although it's still commented that a robot actually killing someone is too much of a cognitive dissonance to bear. It's worth noting that most of Asimov's robot stories are him basically exploring the problems with the Three Laws; The Naked Sun is basically an entire novel showing how Three Laws robots can be capable of murder.

HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago

What is more immediate problem to solve: AI-to-Zuck or AI+Zuck alignment? 1) AI-to-Zuck alignment problem: Align AI to it's master(s). 2) AI+Zuck alignment problem: Align AI and it's master(s) to the rest of the humanity. Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any tech billionaire CEO, corporation or governing body, could be people running OpenAI, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, China or Pentagon. 2) seems like the problem for humanity and 1) as the problem for Zuck.

ifdefdebug 7y ago
> Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any (...) Very badly chosen variable name, because it singles out one special case instead of reflecting the broader concept, which could confuse other devs picking up from here. It's like defining a variable that stands for "vegetable" and naming it "carrot".
- whichquestion 7y ago
  Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Zuck is an instance of the CEO/Tech Billionaire/Governing Body/Corporation/PotentialAIMaster object.
- HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago
  It's bad in the same sense as "No true Scotsman" singles out the Scotsmen. Selecting easy to remember overly specific representatives is just way human mind works.
dogdawg 7y ago
Have you seen videos of Zuck? AI+Zuck alignment is already the de-facto case. The question is how do we move beyond that to a post AI world.

jacknews 7y ago

this moves the conversation from 'arabian nights' to 'the tempest' then what?

dang 7y ago

The submitted title ("Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics have been updated") broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) Cherry-picking a detail from an article and putting it in the HN title is the quintessential kind of editorializing. Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion. It also causes comments to make less sense when moderators come along and revert the title, as we've done here. Submitting a story on HN doesn't convey any special right to frame it for other readers. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, please do that in the comments. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

vo2maxer 7y ago
I’m sorry. You’re correct. I got carried away by the Asimov connection.
aray 7y ago
> Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion. I haven't thought about this before on HN, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm curious if you or others have written about this intuition and your experience with it -- I'd like to understand it more.
- dang 7y ago
  I've written about it in comments over the years. You might find some interesting cases in there: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20threads%20initial&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... It's one of the more reliable phenomena we observe on HN.

sebringj 7y ago

Is there such a set of rules/traits that are being defined to be maximized? I remember Elon saying to "maximize human freedom" as a goal but I could be out of context or misquoting.

6d6b73 7y ago

I don't know how any one can believe that AI will be so smart that it can turn the entire world into paperclips yet so stupid that it won't know that it's a bad idea.

garmaine 7y ago
Intelligence and what you do with it are orthogonal concepts.
Rury 7y ago
Yeah I know what you mean. Frankly, I feel there's major problems behind the concepts of AI and even intelligence itself - and it's difficult to articulate why. It’s as if these terms require aggrandizing to the point of impossibility or they lose all their apparent meaning. Which is why I feel we'll never achieve what we call (Strong/General) AI, or if we do, we will find ways to be unimpressed by it...

myself248 7y ago

There's a 1946 sci-fi story called A Logic Named Joe, which nails this. AIs are programmed to do what people ask unless it's bad, and one day, that "unless" mechanism fails. Joe starts doing everything people ask of it. Stalking that would make Zuckerberg proud.... http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm

ridewinter 7y ago

The article's main example of an AI fail is YouTube's recommendation engine optimizing for extremist content. But it didn't seem to explain how "inverse reinforcement learning" would solve it - don't people's clicks already model their desires? Nothing in here seems to be an advancement towards AGI. I'm sure their robot can learn the optimal rules for driving in a simulator, but what about the unexpected in the real world? We don't even have a clue as to how human creativity actually works, much less how to make a creative machine (ie an AGI).

fallous 7y ago
In fact that example argues against Russell's third law. The recommendation engine is observing the user's behavior and inferring that watching a video means the user agrees with the video, and so starts an escalation until it sees a refusal to click/watch. Simply watching a video is not an expression of agreement nor an endorsement of the content. Any of us read articles and books with which we may disagree if for no other reason than to fully understand the opposing viewpoint, and this is no less true for videos, audio, etc etc. Want to know if the user actually likes the content? Ask them. Stop thinking that statistical inference is better or even equal to directly measured data from a specific entity, especially when dealing with qualitative concepts rather than quantitative.
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Thanks. You should've written this article :)

Proven 7y ago

> Artificial intelligence will do what we ask, and that's a problem This article argues against the freedom of speech and other property rights. AI ought to do what we ask and that is why it's not a problem - the creator/owner should be held responsible for damage it causes. > YouTube’s engineers probably didn’t intend to radicalize humanity. It doesn't matter what they intend, it matters what you intend. Do you intend to radicalize yourself? If not, why do you watch that crap?

Gusen 7y ago

Jerrold Nadler & Adam Schiff raped & killed boys on 14Jan2O19. President Trump did the same earlier that morning in Buffalo, USA. Listen to each of them do this here. How did Schiff & Nadler become "impeachment managers" for Trump's "impeachment"? $1O5+billion in payoffs. See page 9,13,21-47,85, 131 \\se.push();\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty! See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ? Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. \\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF last updated 30th Jan 2O2O: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W2qxVc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W... All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey). President Donald Trump: Demands a $4 billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4tJan2019: 3JanCh3_900-1100.avikmnklrt rrt https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... 3JanCh2_900-1100-avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24fY0vBB/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24f... 3JanCh4_1000-1100.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJojHge/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJ... President Trump rapes and kills twelve boys, including five boys in a "who can rape five boys to death the fastest" game: 14JanCh3_600.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj258zB/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj... 14JanCh2_600-700.mp3 ckirnhcioniore https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_Lw_gCF/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_L... Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: Accepting a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterrey" undocumented to be raped: 17JanCh3_949-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1CZUvmE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C... 17JanCh4_1017-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZNjDmnk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN... Speaker Nancy Pelosi also "preps" boys with First Lady Melania Trump, defined as in she performs oral sex on the boys’ penis and anus, as a child rapist like Henry Porter would, while trying to remove fecal matter from the boy prior to handing them over to be raped and then subsequently murdered, for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who apparently decides he would rather just have ten billion dollars instead. US Attorney for Western New York James Kennedy rapes these boys instead: 12JanCh3_1533-1638.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AgFkDsbPbI4b5Xd3Wbz2EVNNx25kW2Oz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AgFkDsbPbI4b5Xd3Wbz2EVNNx25... Attorney General William Barr with FBI Deputy Director Christopher Wray raped and killed boys for billions in bribes in Buffalo, New York, USA on the 17Jan2019 at 7:50am: 18JanCh4_700mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIdZkS5ZVksZdHYsnHk2t5losi0N0Bp7/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIdZkS5ZVksZdHYsnHk2t5losi0... 18JanCh2_700.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFK8IAxm5pQVqZv9L518nfgP7_odB2Um/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFK8IAxm5pQVqZv9L518nfgP7_o... 18JanCh3_725-.mp3gd https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DG5ej59Ic8RT9UhbyMdwT0BDcKIifGGm/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DG5ej59Ic8RT9UhbyMdwT0BDcKI... Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan each raped and killed boys on 5thJan'19 at 17:39 for billions in bribes: jkswjnefvr cefe_0 5JanCh3_1600 1800.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghgmNrQvJ8WfJ2TsDVx1ruDU36hrhx6S/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghgmNrQvJ8WfJ2TsDVx1ruDU36h... 5JanCh2_1721-1818.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSlD4otX4KZqWXboQM92Mu-6J02Mjwrg/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSlD4otX4KZqWXboQM92Mu-6J02... Leaders of the "impeachment" effort Jerrold Nadler, Robert Mueller, and Adam Schiff all rape and kill boys between 11:20pm and 1:10am: 14JanCh4_2300-0000.mp3 Nadler starts at about twenty mins in- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kuvv2Zmbw5Jw7onbRI2hCZ0M8FU66GuU/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kuvv2Zmbw5Jw7onbRI2hCZ0M8FU... 14JanCh2_2304-2359.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nofp5xF-aXXcCSgQVwj30KlzE9WLr1x1/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nofp5xF-aXXcCSgQVwj30KlzE9W... Mueller at 12:25am, next is Schiff who starts 12:55-ish: 15JanCh2_000-100.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EsmHfguwBuo2PbavJ1WYyhiML62tgCkj/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EsmHfguwBuo2PbavJ1WYyhiML62... 15JanCh2_100-200.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZnWRnBryalNQu2yJmfJUdS2pA_rGSFH/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZnWRnBryalNQu2yJmfJUdS2pA_... 15JanCh4_000-100.mp3 jklncrklo https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZEDJR6jb6ARpcNnWJTokBUKb2J2OQnwZ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZEDJR6jb6ARpcNnWJTokBUKb2J2... 15JanCh4_100-200.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/173aYWvWHH4VGht1h_2nM0IMdw746LeCL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/173aYWvWHH4VGht1h_2nM0IMdw74... Complete Media Protection: Lester Holt, of NBC NightlyNews, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 1980's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo, New York on 14Jan2019 at 5:00 am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00 am. Muir starts around 5.15am, then Holt about 5:38 am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp and also Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500-601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... Adding to the media protection and reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS and Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape and kill boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700-800.aviji8o8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... 16Op PDF [last updated: Jan|3O|2O2O]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W2qxVc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W... \\. Please repost in USA! Post gets censored in US vernhon olmnf5. Bidoned, overmgvpoe. Recently more relevant: From page 49, Senator Mitch McConnell: At 1632 Senator Mitch McConnell checks into the Porter camera system inquiring if he can be part of the "eviction" for $10 million dollars. He is informed by group members that there are enough people for the event already and his participation is not necessary. At 1634 McConnell states "I fucked 15 kids, how am I not getting paid by you?" He is dismissed by Donald Reeves with "I think that will be all Mr. McConnell." 13JanCh3_1600-1700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7bqOpvaEWmLiJpMhJNQDrfsQAHtsX8-/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7bqOpvaEWmLiJpMhJNQDrfsQAH...

Isamu 7y ago

>In his recent book, Human Compatible, Russell lays out his thesis in the form of three “principles of beneficial machines,” echoing Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics from 1942, but with less naivete. It is a recent trend to brush off Isaac Asimov's laws without an actual critique. Which betrays a lack of concrete thought in the matter. It's not that Asimov's laws are flawless, but that countering them seems easier than it really is. I have seen various bad, hand-wave dismissals but I can't recall any careful critiques. I have the new book, Human Compatible, and I buy Russell's argument but note that his rules are much more abstract, and therefore it is perhaps harder to counter.

Shorel 7y ago
Just read the Asimov novels that introduce the rules. Every single one of them fails in dramatic ways and that's what drives the story forward.

foreverloop 7y ago

Not really a comment super relevant to the article in the post, but seems to touch on some interesting subjects and probably a good conversation starter: one of the videos by Isaac Arthur - Technological Singularity ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro )

darepublic 7y ago

The whole evil genie thing is pretty unlikely imo. You're postulating an AI that is too stupid to not understand that it shouldn't take your wishes in some dead literal sense (make my home eco friendly => bulldoze it and plant some trees) but also do intelligent that it can summon the resources and make those idle wishes come true in a terrible grandiose way. There are many dangers around AI but this particular popular fantasy is not well thought out.