3 ms·
We 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 end
by db48x 4y ago
We 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 4y 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 4y 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.