20 ms·

It's not really as simple as you think. There is a massive amount of research out there along those lines. Search for "Bostrom Superintelligence" "AGI Control

by ilaksh 2y ago

It's not really as simple as you think. There is a massive amount of research out there along those lines. Search for "Bostrom Superintelligence" "AGI Control Problem", "MIRI AGI Safety", "David Shapiro Three Laws of Robotis" are a few things that come to mind that will give you a start.

freeone3000 2y ago
Those assume robots that are smarter than us. What if we assume, as we likely have now, robots that are dumber? Address the actual current issues with code-as-law, expectations-versus-rules, and dealing with conflict of laws in an actual structured fashion without relying on vibes (like people) or a bunch of rng (like an llm)?
- ilaksh 2y ago
  What system do you propose that implements the code-as-law? What type of architecture does it have?
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    I don’t know! I’m currently trying a strong bayesian prior for the RL action planner, which has good tradeoffs with enforcement but poor tradeoffs with legibility and ingestion. Aside from Spain, there’s not a lot of computer-legible law to transpile; llm support always needs to be checked and some of the larger submodels reach the limits of the explainability framework I’m using. There’s also still the HF step that needs to be incorporated, which is expensive! But the alternative is Waymo, which keeps the law perfectly even when “everybody knows” it needs to be broken sometimes for traffic(society) to function acceptably. So the above strong prior needs to be coordinated with HF and the appropriate penalties assigned… In other words. It’s a mess! But assumptions of “AGI” don’t really help anyone.
andai 2y ago
Sounds like it would take animal intelligence (current AIs may be superhuman in many respects, but they are sub-animal in most!), coupled with mirror neurons. i.e. understand what hurts me, then extend that to others (presumably with a value multiplier for humans).

by ilaksh 2y ago

freeone3000 2y ago

Those assume robots that are smarter than us. What if we assume, as we likely have now, robots that are dumber? Address the actual current issues with code-as-law, expectations-versus-rules, and dealing with conflict of laws in an actual structured fashion without relying on vibes (like people) or a bunch of rng (like an llm)?

ilaksh 2y ago
What system do you propose that implements the code-as-law? What type of architecture does it have?
- freeone3000 2y ago
  I don’t know! I’m currently trying a strong bayesian prior for the RL action planner, which has good tradeoffs with enforcement but poor tradeoffs with legibility and ingestion. Aside from Spain, there’s not a lot of computer-legible law to transpile; llm support always needs to be checked and some of the larger submodels reach the limits of the explainability framework I’m using. There’s also still the HF step that needs to be incorporated, which is expensive! But the alternative is Waymo, which keeps the law perfectly even when “everybody knows” it needs to be broken sometimes for traffic(society) to function acceptably. So the above strong prior needs to be coordinated with HF and the appropriate penalties assigned… In other words. It’s a mess! But assumptions of “AGI” don’t really help anyone.

andai 2y ago

Sounds like it would take animal intelligence (current AIs may be superhuman in many respects, but they are sub-animal in most!), coupled with mirror neurons. i.e. understand what hurts me, then extend that to others (presumably with a value multiplier for humans).