4 ms·

That's a contradiction: you're saying that the AI cannot follow clear rules because it is a large heuristic, but then you talk about the limitations of hard-cod

That's a contradiction: you're saying that the AI cannot follow clear rules because it is a large heuristic, but then you talk about the limitations of hard-coded behaviors :) I believe the ML part can be relied upon to accurately behave as long as it can exhibit logical thinking at all (which, at least to a significant degree, it seems to be able to) -- in principle it would seem like its ethics potential should be proportional to its general (linguistic) reasoning potential. I think this is exactly the benefit we have: AIs are fuzzy (like humans are), so then can understand fuzzy laws (which seemed to be a huge problem in the early days). The problem is how to get them to incorporate those laws that they can surely understand into their motivation. This doesn't seem insurmountable to me: a parallel critic prompt "Does this question and answer follow the following ethical guidelines: ... ?" (or something more complex but largely equivalent), or maybe some other form of engineering the AI thinking and motivation to include abstract goal evaluation at some stage.

powersnail 4y ago
What I was trying to say, and perhaps failed to clearly convey, is that neither approach seems sufficient. What we want, is for robots to not harm people. We want robots to understand what this rule means semantically, and at the same time we want to hard code it into their behavior. And I'm saying that we don't know how to do that, yet. In other words, we haven't quite figure out how to hard-code a rule that involves a high-level, abstract idea. And I'm not talking about logic or fuzziness here. I'm talking about something much more basic. For instance, do you have confidence that our AI can identify humans correctly? A robot can fail to follow rule 1, when it misidentifies a human as a walking cabbage. Do you have confidence that AI can identify "harm"? I'm not saying that I don't like AI, or that they don't have benefits. I love robots and artificial intelligence, and I see plenty of practical benefits.

powersnail 4y ago

What I was trying to say, and perhaps failed to clearly convey, is that neither approach seems sufficient. What we want, is for robots to not harm people. We want robots to understand what this rule means semantically, and at the same time we want to hard code it into their behavior. And I'm saying that we don't know how to do that, yet. In other words, we haven't quite figure out how to hard-code a rule that involves a high-level, abstract idea. And I'm not talking about logic or fuzziness here. I'm talking about something much more basic. For instance, do you have confidence that our AI can identify humans correctly? A robot can fail to follow rule 1, when it misidentifies a human as a walking cabbage. Do you have confidence that AI can identify "harm"? I'm not saying that I don't like AI, or that they don't have benefits. I love robots and artificial intelligence, and I see plenty of practical benefits.