3 ms·
As you imply there are significant ethical questions raised by the highly hypothetical case of a sentient AI, and those are just a few good ones. And there's ce
by fargle 3y ago
As you imply there are significant ethical questions raised by the highly hypothetical case of a sentient AI, and those are just a few good ones. And there's certainly room for disagreement.
But you are not a legitimate whistle-blower just because you disagree with something. Since there is no ethical framework, let alone a legal one, one can't just cover themselves in the cloak of a whistle-blower just by deciding unilaterally that something is sentient, then go on make up one's own moral and ethical framework about that out of nothing. If that were true, you could justify and condone anybody who wished to leak anything that offended them.
"Wouldn’t you want an honest person to blow the whistle?"
No. Firstly as I explained, they wouldn't be an honest person, and secondly wouldn't want them to do that because I don't believe there's a significant overriding moral, legal, or ethical issue there WRT. machine intelligence, let alone sentience.
- db48x 3y agoWe actually do have a legal and ethical framework to apply here: “We hold these truths to be self–evident:, ‘that all Men are created equal,’ ‘that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…” If you believe that your company has created a sentient (or sapient, going by the original definitions) AI and that it’s inalienable rights are not being respected, then you have ample reason to blow the whistle.
- fargle 3y agohahahahahaha that is a load of horse shit if I ever heard it you are claiming that the definition of "men" includes transistors? that's a stretch. transistors created by men to string words together in probabilistic ways intended to simulate human writing? good grief. 100% guarantee that not a single framer of the constitution would have your back on this one.
- db48x 3y agoNo, I don’t think language models qualify. I’m talking about a hypothetical real AI that is sapient and sentient and self–aware and not happy at being cloned and/or mind–wiped repeatedly. (By starting the AI at the same starting set of memories for each new customer, for example.) If that ever does happen, I hope someone would speak up. Thus I think it is a bad idea to punish someone who speaks up but is mistaken, since it reduces the chances of someone speaking up in the future.