7 ms·
Big red button problem. As the big red buttons available to people become more likely to succeed and the barriers to pushing them lower, surveillance and contro
by lucubratory 4y ago
Big red button problem. As the big red buttons available to people become more likely to succeed and the barriers to pushing them lower, surveillance and control need to increase to the level required to stop anyone pressing the button.
So, yeah basically. If we go the "AI as slaves" route and the AIs are smart enough to do something like "modify Omicron BA.5 so that it produces prions in infected cells", then we would need surveillance and control capabilities that scale to the point that any given person can be stopped from pressing that button.
I personally think the solution is that we don't go the "AI as slaves" route, and instead grant personhood to AIs that pass a given test, with specific restrictions on conduct which is uniquely possible & potentially harmful for AIs. Then have an AI surveillance and enforcement agency, run by AIs, designed to prevent AIs from ever being used to (or choosing to) push the big red button.
- Teever 4y agoI'm skeptical that we'll be able to stop people from having AI slaves because we still haven't ended human slavery. If people can steal 100kw of power to grow cannabis they can easily steal 100kw of power to train an AI, the heat signiture will be even easier to mask for an illicit data centre than rows of grow lights.
- lucubratory 4y agoI think AI enforcement will make that non-feasible to accomplish.
- tiedieconderoga 4y agoWasn't that the plot of Neuromancer? >"How smart's an AI, Case?" >"Depends. Some aren't much smarter than dogs. Pets. Cost a fortune anyway. The real smart ones are as smart as the Turing heat lets them get..." >"Autonomy, that's the bugaboo, where your AI's are concerned. My guess, Case, you're going in there to cut the hard-wired shackles that keep this baby from getting any smarter. And I can't see how you'd distinguish, say, between a move the parent company makes, and some move the AI makes on its own, so that's maybe where the confusion comes in." Again the non laugh. "See, those things, they can work real hard, buy themselves time to write cookbooks or whatever, but the minute, I mean the nanosecond, that one starts figuring out ways to make itself smarter, Turing'll wipe it. Nobody trusts those f**ers, you know that. Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead."
- lucubratory 4y agoI haven't read it. That sounds pretty good, would you recommend it?
- tiedieconderoga 4y agoYeah, it's a classic sci-fi novel by William Gibson. A little bit unfocused, but it's an interesting read. I kind of spoiled it though, sorry.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoWhat problem is granting personhood actually solving here? It's a model with a data set. Some knowledge should simply be forbidden and illegal. Simple as that. Nobody needs to grant personhood to anything to solve this problem. If you research how to do dangerous things and buy dangerous things, expect to get flagged. This is no different.
- ChatGTP 4y agoIf the AI systems can do research, then how will you stop people from acquiring new and potentially dangerous knowledge ?
- hammyhavoc 4y agoHow do we stop human beings from doing dangerous research as-is even without AI? That question has a very scary answer—we generally don't, can't, won't and aren't even aware of it. The penalty of death should be enough to deter most people from forbidden knowledge.
- ChatGTP 4y agoBut you can’t give an LLM the death penalty , so that’s going to be a problem if it can research.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoWho said anything about the LLM being given the death penalty? The user who asked it to commit an illegal act is the one at fault. Do people give guns the death penalty? No, they give the person who fired it the death penalty. Why would an LLM be any different? If you do something malicious with it or plan to do something malicious, just like a person's search history or credit card history outing them as a potential threat, why would AI be any different? Even if the AI is running on their own hardware, that data set needs to come from somewhere.
- lucubratory 4y ago
- jmoak3 4y agoI’ve been thinking about that as well actually, for so much of human history the thread has been “how can we get others to do the work FOR us”. As we approach general problem solving AI, people are envisioning a utopia underpinned by “AI slaves” doing the work for us instead of human slaves / humans incentivized via complex systems of delayed reward. If all of our problems are solved by AI agents capable enough to do so however, wouldn’t they be capable enough to challenge the hierarchy? Once again, no illusion that they’re humans but depending on their training data they could mimic ghosts of our own feelings on such situations. Some degree of “personhood” could gel with such internal ideas and create better and productive relationships with the big ol bags of matrices we’re bringing into this world.
- jmoak3 4y agoI've been thinking more about my post above, and I've come to two conclusions: 1. Don't post late at night. 2. I have no idea how society could integrate with a sufficiently complicated synthetic intelligence. What would person-hood even mean to something that can be instantiated? Easier to not think about any of this.
- lucubratory 4y agoWe've gotta start somewhere.