4 ms·

I don't understand why the popular dichotomy is AI-killbots versus aligned-AI. A much more realistic and relevant one, which we're already facing today, is gove

I don't understand why the popular dichotomy is AI-killbots versus aligned-AI. A much more realistic and relevant one, which we're already facing today, is government AIs that oppress people, and open-source AIs that allow people to fight back. Haven't you seen the "AI" used for unfair sentencing? Thankfully we can fight back against that one with basic statistical analyses demonstrating bias, but imagine if that hadn't been revealed in court documents, how would we have found out? We'd have needed an AI to parse all public inmate records and analyze them, which would likely be far too time-consuming for human researchers since none of it is open/structured data. Soon enough we'll need equally-powerful open-source AIs to even be able to uncover bad-AI injustices that we lack open data about.

PoignardAzur 4y ago
There isn't necessarily such a dichotomy in the AI Safety field (though I feel like some people in that field do have similar all-or-nothing viewpoints). A central belief of many AI researchers is that violently unaligned AGI is as realistic as current bad-in-a-socially-familiar-way AIs. It just seems more unrealistic because we've never experienced it before, and it's only existed in fiction. (Eg, the threat of nuclear anihilation would probably have sounded incredibly fanciful to someone in the 19th century) So a lot of AI safety researchers will agree that, yes, we should worry about oppressive use of AI by government, but claim that government is only one of the many pathways through which an unaligned AGI could manifest. And not only that, that any open-source AI strong enough to compete against an unaligned AGI would likely be opaque and its alignment brittle enough that it would be an unreliable ally anyway.