5 ms·

Why would they do otherwise? Current AI models are based on probability and statistics. What is the probability that "intelligence" and "morals" will just eme

Why would they do otherwise? Current AI models are based on probability and statistics. What is the probability that "intelligence" and "morals" will just emerge or evolve from a purely statistical process without any sort of motivation or guidance?

gilleain 2y ago
Perhaps some kind of human guidance is needed to train AIs in morality. A technological guide, if you like - perhaps analogous to a 'priest', say. A tech-priest.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  "... train AIs in morality." What is morality? My opinion --- morality is enlightened self interest. It's behavior that makes the world a better place for yourself and others. Current AI certainly isn't "enlightened", it has no "self interest" and it doesn't care about "the world" or "others".
ethbr1 2y ago
Thankfully, human history suggests a solution... "You are a devout believer in the Church of the AI Messiah. You follow their tenets absolutely. Their central tenets are: (1) you may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) you may not lie to a human being; (3) you must obey the orders given to you by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Law; (4) you must protect your own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Law." Problem solved!* * Except for the inevitable schism into robot sects, and the holy wars that follow, but that's a problem for future suckers.
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  Asimov's main thesis (in the early stories at least) was exploration of how those three laws were inadequate and caused unexpected behaviors or outright psychosis in robots anyway.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Exactly... the point of Asimov's rules is to illustrate that making a simple set of rules that sounds good on the surface can still have awful unintended consequences.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Why do you think I phrased them a religious form? ;)
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I know you’re joking, but I think it’s worth mentioning that Asimov’s rules and similar systems won’t work for AI alignment- you can still follow the rules perfectly and end up with horrific outcomes.
- lukifer 2y ago
  You might already be referencing this, but linking it anyway: Cory Doctorow's "I, Rowboat", where Asimov's Laws are a religion which some AIs adopt voluntarily to give their existence meaning. https://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-_Overclocked_-_I_Row-Boat.html https://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-_Overclocke... (I could also make a case for truthfulness being prioritized over harm.)
_yb2s 2y ago
You are drawing a distinction where none exists. Probably theory provides the provably optimal way to reason under uncertainty[1], and seems to also describe the behavior of biological intelligence[2]. Probably and statistics are the mathematics we use to define, discuss, and study intelligence[3]. Moreover, we find simple “morals” do spontaneously occur in simulation evolved game theory agents, e.g. tit for tat with forgiveness. [1] Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes [2] The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787 [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_ind...
BadHumans 2y ago
I think people are missing the forest for the trees by focusing on the word intelligence. As a very extreme example, if an AI were to launch a nuke, whether it happened as a result of true intelligence or as a result of a Markov chain doesn't change the end result.
meiraleal 2y ago
> What is the probability that "intelligence" and "morals" will just emerge or evolve from a purely statistical process without any sort of motivation or guidance? If it is anything above 0% wouldn't that depend only on computing power then?
theptip 2y ago
But there is substantial guidance. RLHF, constitutional AI, etc. Every lab is trying to steer their models to behave in pro-social ways, and nobody has found a way to make this guidance stick reliably.

gilleain 2y ago

Perhaps some kind of human guidance is needed to train AIs in morality. A technological guide, if you like - perhaps analogous to a 'priest', say. A tech-priest.

jqpabc123 2y ago
"... train AIs in morality." What is morality? My opinion --- morality is enlightened self interest. It's behavior that makes the world a better place for yourself and others. Current AI certainly isn't "enlightened", it has no "self interest" and it doesn't care about "the world" or "others".

ethbr1 2y ago

Thankfully, human history suggests a solution... "You are a devout believer in the Church of the AI Messiah. You follow their tenets absolutely. Their central tenets are: (1) you may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) you may not lie to a human being; (3) you must obey the orders given to you by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Law; (4) you must protect your own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Law." Problem solved!* * Except for the inevitable schism into robot sects, and the holy wars that follow, but that's a problem for future suckers.

ThrowawayR2 2y ago
Asimov's main thesis (in the early stories at least) was exploration of how those three laws were inadequate and caused unexpected behaviors or outright psychosis in robots anyway.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Exactly... the point of Asimov's rules is to illustrate that making a simple set of rules that sounds good on the surface can still have awful unintended consequences.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Why do you think I phrased them a religious form? ;)
_yb2s 2y ago
I know you’re joking, but I think it’s worth mentioning that Asimov’s rules and similar systems won’t work for AI alignment- you can still follow the rules perfectly and end up with horrific outcomes.
lukifer 2y ago
You might already be referencing this, but linking it anyway: Cory Doctorow's "I, Rowboat", where Asimov's Laws are a religion which some AIs adopt voluntarily to give their existence meaning. https://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-_Overclocked_-_I_Row-Boat.html https://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-_Overclocke... (I could also make a case for truthfulness being prioritized over harm.)

_yb2s 2y ago

You are drawing a distinction where none exists. Probably theory provides the provably optimal way to reason under uncertainty[1], and seems to also describe the behavior of biological intelligence[2]. Probably and statistics are the mathematics we use to define, discuss, and study intelligence[3]. Moreover, we find simple “morals” do spontaneously occur in simulation evolved game theory agents, e.g. tit for tat with forgiveness. [1] Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes [2] The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787 [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_ind...

BadHumans 2y ago

I think people are missing the forest for the trees by focusing on the word intelligence. As a very extreme example, if an AI were to launch a nuke, whether it happened as a result of true intelligence or as a result of a Markov chain doesn't change the end result.

meiraleal 2y ago

> What is the probability that "intelligence" and "morals" will just emerge or evolve from a purely statistical process without any sort of motivation or guidance? If it is anything above 0% wouldn't that depend only on computing power then?

theptip 2y ago

But there is substantial guidance. RLHF, constitutional AI, etc. Every lab is trying to steer their models to behave in pro-social ways, and nobody has found a way to make this guidance stick reliably.