4 ms·
Very interesting. It seems like we ought to focus on very specific points of containment. For example, AI should never be afforded "personhood" as we do now wi
by ekanes 3y ago
Very interesting. It seems like we ought to focus on very specific points of containment. For example, AI should never be afforded "personhood" as we do now with corporations. It should never have rights, or bank accounts, or unbridled control over money.
Second, I wonder if we could force conversation-points where AI talks to other AI's to be simple and perhaps open-source.
So a AI banking API talking to the Tesla API can never say much more than "yes this driver has funds" etc. It can't talk about world domination.
- 13years 3y agoThe issue is that no matter what capabilities we decide it shouldn't have access, is there a means by which it could acquire those on its own. And even if we were hypothetically successful, and has been demonstrated already with the release of primitive LLMs, someone out there will build unaligned AI purposely.
- ekanes 3y agoI agree, but if the unaligned AI can't do certain things, hopefully that contains it. I was just thinking about North Korea, and how AI will enable statewide surveillance on a whole new level, but then the thought popped into my head that maybe if AI can't be stopped, it can't be stopped there either, and maybe it'll be benevolent, and in 30 years they will be freed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Hard to know how this plays out.
- 13years 3y ago> maybe it'll be benevolent Hoping it will be benevolent is about the only thing we have at this point. Many, but not all, alignment safety researches believe that it will inherently exhibit properties that make for disastrous outcomes. Since they have no solution for this problem if it exists, at this point hoping they are wrong is the best option.