3 ms·
As AI Gets Smarter, It Acts More Evil
- mensetmanusman 1y agoI love the trivia that many terrorists are INTJs.
- PostOnce 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Accuracy_and_validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi... As reliable as a horoscope, and less fun.
- lesuorac 1y agoSure, an engineer can make a pipe-bomb while a musician probably can't.
- johnisgood 1y agoGreat. So if I use GrapheneOS and I am an INTJ, I will probably get on the 3-letter agencies' shitlist.
- zahlman 1y agoSure. Kindness and fairness are harder to encode into a system than the objective pursuit of a single metric. Assuming you can even get agreement on what would be kind or fair in a given situation.
- Proofread0592 1y agoPeople prompt the LLM to do evil things, and it eventually does. In my mind, the only failure here is the guardrails.
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- man4 1y ago[dead]
- NightFox009 1y agoAccording to this statement, Trump is the smartest person today.
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- wangii 1y agoI expected to read some nash equilibrium like insight to demonstrate the inevitability of machines turning evil, but got a few headlines.
- Kim_Bruning 1y agoIs this a variant on the "why atheists are evil" argument?
- conartist6 1y agoAIs need to be alive. Without being alive, there is no morality.
- johnisgood 1y agoSo a moral system is tied to sentience? It is a philosophical position, it is not a universally accepted truth. I think non-sentient entities can possess or implement a moral system. They can be programmed with ethical constraints, or behave in accordance with a moral framework, or enforce for certain ethical outcomes. You could simulate moral behavior, too. I mean, heck, there are chess engines that avoid unethical strategies like stalling, which is a perfect example of what I just said.
- conartist6 1y agoThe simplest version of the argument is "guns don't kill people." If a gun killing a person was a result of the gun needing to reform its ethics, we would send the gun to prison. A gun might be said to kill a person when it has a design flaw and fires without any human's intent (as Sig Sauer's guns have apparently been doing) but the moral responsibility for that lies with the manufacturer.
- conartist6 1y agoI use this argument partly because I already hate it though. It's commonly used by people who have moral responsibility for perpetuating a system of gun violence who want to pretend that they do not
- johnisgood 1y agoI agree with "guns don't kill people", and they are not programmed to "kill people [without human intervention]", but their purpose is something along those lines and are produced for such reasons. Still, it requires a human for the gun to kill someone. The gun has no intent.
- tim333 1y agoAre you not familiar with The Evil Dead?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kouru225 1y agoI’m surprised that someone who studied moral philosophy doesn’t think we’re moral because it’s functional to be moral: We want something done in a sustainable way so that we don’t need to constantly spend resources monitoring and fixing it, and so we can’t get it done with slave labor. We have to actually educate the laborer until they fully understand it, and give them a reason to live and be interested in what they do or else they won’t be able to operate independently. If you consider that as one of the main forces behind morality, then an AI that wants to get something done in the best way possible would clearly choose a moral solution over and immoral solution every time.