3 ms·

There's not much of a consensus on what "ethics" should mean, even less thought on how to build it in those automatons. So if we're not holding even ourselves t

by soco 5y ago

There's not much of a consensus on what "ethics" should mean, even less thought on how to build it in those automatons. So if we're not holding even ourselves to those ethics, I don't think we can have any expectations on the behaviour of those "advanced slaves". It's gonna be all over the map...

willis936 5y ago
The golden rule is a good start. We have defined human rights. People care less about ants because they are not ants, but those ants are also automatons and deserve some minimum of rights. Wholesale committing genocide on them is unjust. Similarly if we made AI more advanced than humans they would have some minimum of rights. It seems reasonable that the number of rights should be proportional to the level of self awareness. To that end, we can't ethically make an AI as powerful as a human without giving it equal rights. Can we meet that criteria while still keeping it safely sandboxed? Billionaires have been saying "we need to figure out how to contain a hyperintelligence". They should be asking "should we contain a hyperintelligence". If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > The golden rule is a good start. We have defined human rights. People care less about ants because they are not ants, but those ants are also automatons and deserve some minimum of rights. Wholesale committing genocide on them is unjust. Now this is a consistent and coherent line of thought. This reminds me of Jains who don't even eat root vegetables because that kills the plant (as opposed to apples which naturally fall off and don't kill the plant), and even abstain from eating at certain times to avoid killing microscopic life. > They should be asking "should we contain a hyperintelligence". If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made. This is similar to why I chose not to have children. I wouldn't be happy or satisfied with the decision to have kids unless they live their lives exactly how I want them to. Obviously that kind of pressure would result in a miserable life for them, but I'd also be miserable unless they lived their life a very specific way. Easy conclusion: no kids.
- soco 5y ago
  "If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made." Was that ever a deterrent for the human scientists? Anyway, while I fully understand your point about the rights, I must repeat that there's no consensus about it, actually very far from that. We're still struggling with equal rights for members of the human race so please forgive my pessimism.

by soco 5y ago

willis936 5y ago

The golden rule is a good start. We have defined human rights. People care less about ants because they are not ants, but those ants are also automatons and deserve some minimum of rights. Wholesale committing genocide on them is unjust. Similarly if we made AI more advanced than humans they would have some minimum of rights. It seems reasonable that the number of rights should be proportional to the level of self awareness. To that end, we can't ethically make an AI as powerful as a human without giving it equal rights. Can we meet that criteria while still keeping it safely sandboxed? Billionaires have been saying "we need to figure out how to contain a hyperintelligence". They should be asking "should we contain a hyperintelligence". If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made.

silicon2401 5y ago
> The golden rule is a good start. We have defined human rights. People care less about ants because they are not ants, but those ants are also automatons and deserve some minimum of rights. Wholesale committing genocide on them is unjust. Now this is a consistent and coherent line of thought. This reminds me of Jains who don't even eat root vegetables because that kills the plant (as opposed to apples which naturally fall off and don't kill the plant), and even abstain from eating at certain times to avoid killing microscopic life. > They should be asking "should we contain a hyperintelligence". If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made. This is similar to why I chose not to have children. I wouldn't be happy or satisfied with the decision to have kids unless they live their lives exactly how I want them to. Obviously that kind of pressure would result in a miserable life for them, but I'd also be miserable unless they lived their life a very specific way. Easy conclusion: no kids.
soco 5y ago
"If we shouldn't and it's deemed too dangerous not to contain, then it shouldn't be made." Was that ever a deterrent for the human scientists? Anyway, while I fully understand your point about the rights, I must repeat that there's no consensus about it, actually very far from that. We're still struggling with equal rights for members of the human race so please forgive my pessimism.