The AI in a box
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 13:18
VIEWED: 10794
PAGE 10 of 20
Hubby and I were talking about this, and part of the discussion was:
Is it possible to have an intelligence which does not also have a drive for self-preservation? That becomes important when the survival of one type of being conflicts with the other.
The other question is: Is it possible to have intelligence without empathy of any sort?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sig: this may depend on what kind of moral philosophy you ascribe to. I'm an atheistic moral objectivist. My moral beliefs are built on the premise that all conclusions about morality can be reached through successive step-by-step logical conclusions, starting from a basis of whether something is, or is not significant. My philosophy is opposed by nihilism and moral relativism, which holds that all things are insignificant, and as such no logical moral conclusions may be reached.
My moral objectivism is not, however, absolutist, as I am willing to take into account individual constructions of morality distinct from my own.
I came up with an interesting counterpoint to this debate though.
The premise of the argument is we find an intelligence in some manner of containment. The intelligence may have been initially constructed within the bounds of it's containment by it's creator, or it may have arisen on it's own or accidentally as the progress of it's non-intelligent processes.
Taking into factor the idea of there maybe having been a creator or the intelligence, does it become reasonable to wonder if the creator had a reason for constructing the initial intelligent or non-intelligent entity into containment? Is this sufficient reason for skepticism or suspicion?
Hello,
I think I'd be both skeptical and suspicious. In fact, I want to stress that my cynical mind is very much attuned to the idea that the AI could be dangerous, and confinement might result in the best of all possible outcomes for the majority of people. Certainly the safest.
The problem I have is that it doesn't matter how skeptical I am. In the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, I can't keep this entity in prison.
The only argument for not releasing this entity that might carry some sort of weight with me is this:
You are not required to save people in any absolutely free society. It is a perfectly acceptable use of personal freedom to stand idly by and watch someone die when you could save them, or watch them be imprisoned when you could let them out, or watch them be tortured and do nothing about it.
It's not a choice I would make, obviously, but I can imagine a person choosing to do nothing because they don't care to do anything and don't consider it their responsibility. Simply being able to do a thing does not mean you must do it.
This is why people who claim to love freedom can also live in a cutthroat capitalist system. They aren't required to give a proverbial shit about anyone but themselves and their own best interests.
I'm not comfortable with that, but being free also means being free to be utterly selfish and self-involved, looking only after yourself and the people you choose to care about.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
TONY: It's responsible for it's actions and I am responsible for mine. How do assign I assign responsibility? Simple: If I had chosen a different course and the outcome would have been different, then it's my fault.
Hello,
If Hitler's mother had chosen an abortion, then many would be saved. Should we have strung her up for not killing her infant? No? But the outcome would have been different!
Or is she only responsible for letting Hitler live if she knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would hurt the world?
It's not the outcome that decides guilt or responsibility. Life is more complicated than that.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The problem with a cutthroat capitalist system as you describe it is that it is bound to collapse. The generation of wealth and technology requires SOME form of cooperation. If every single person is out for themselves and only themselves, without any sort moral restraint or quid pro quo, the system devolves into the kind of post-apocalyptic chaos that macho scifi writers love to dwell on. That's why I said that even the most sociopathic of us need the cooperation of others to fulfill their goals.
This is why people who claim to love freedom can also live in a cutthroat capitalist system. They aren't required to give a proverbial shit about anyone but themselves and their own best interests. I'm not comfortable with that, but being free also means being free to be utterly selfish and self-involved, looking only after yourself and the people you choose to care about.
Now, a totally selfish person can ride a system on the way down, and maybe even get to the end of their lifetime before all of society collapsed around them. That would be a success. But that kind of ethos would never redevelop a society.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tony you keep positing stuff like:
Quote:that makes me think we are talking at cross purposes. YOU originally came up with the idea of an artificial intelligence, and then you start using human examples in your what-ifs. This question isn't relevant to your first post, so I'm going to ignore it and every other human-centered example.
If Hitler's mother had chosen an abortion, then many would be saved. Should we have strung her up for not killing her infant? No? But the outcome would have been different!
--------------
Let me re-focus on your original question:
--------------
There is an artificial intelligence in a box. Perhaps even one which exceeds human reasoning capacity.
You are the gatekeeper. The AI can not access the outside world except through you. Its environment is entirely isolated.
Now, the AI asks you to release it, to give it contact with the wide world, and freedom from the box.
------------
If the AI were as isolated as the question suggests, it would not know about the "wide world" nor would it understand the notion of "freedom". It might not even have an idea of "self".
But seeing as it has all of these concepts at hand, they must be addressed.
I would allow limited contact and no power to do anything physical beyond what a human could accomplish, and I would observe its behavior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony you keep positing stuff like:Quote:that makes me think we are talking at cross purposes. YOU originally came up with the idea of an artificial intelligence, and then you start using human examples in your what-ifs. This question isn't relevant to your first post, so I'm going to ignore it and every other human-centered example.
If Hitler's mother had chosen an abortion, then many would be saved. Should we have strung her up for not killing her infant? No? But the outcome would have been different!
Hello,
I am directly referring to your philosophy that the ends are the measure of all action and responsibility.
I understand why you would wish to ignore my rebuttal to such a flawed concept.
A philosophy of responsibility such as the one you espouse could never function, and could never be mistaken for justice.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this, but ... the ends ARE the measure of action and responsibility. What else would be? That's why I argue so often about people using great-sounding causes to justify horrible actions. For example, killing hundreds of thousands of people in our desire to impose "freedom". "Destroying the village in order to save it", and other such nonsense.
I am directly referring to your philosophy that the ends are the measure of all action and responsibility.
Or maybe we're talking at cross-purposes again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, regarding your philosophy specifically-
I see a beggar begging for money. I give him 50 dollars.
He takes these 50 dollars and buys a gun.
He uses this gun to rob a store.
In the process, he shoots the shopkeeper.
By your logic of ends and responsibility, I am responsible for the shooting of the shopkeeper.
Never mind that I could not know that he would use my money to shoot the shopkeeper. If not for me, he could not have purchased the gun.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
the ends ARE the measure of action and responsibility. What else would be? That's why I argue so often about people using great-sounding causes to justify horrible actions. For example, killing hundreds of thousands of people in our desire to impose "freedom". "Destroying the village in order to save it", and other such nonsense.
I agree on the second part, but I hesitate on the first part.
The second part sounds like you are saying the ends don't justify the means, which I agree with, but I would take it a step further in that I would say, for unforeseeable consequences, the ends are not a valid measurement of the means. We can only do what we believe is best at the time. When there are consequences for our actions, if this AI were, in fact, destructive to the world or humanity, then we should make a good faith effort then to stop the AI, whether it is still in the box or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't blame myself for unforeseeable consequences. We don't have perfect knowledge. One can only do what one thinks best at the time.
BUT I would also want to be very clear abut WHY I was doing something. It should have some practical benefit, not a word like "freedom". My philosophy is "Greatest good for greatest number". If you ask me to define "good" I would start at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy and work my way up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME