The AI in a box
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 13:18
VIEWED: 10794
PAGE 13 of 20
Point taken - however I do not see The Blind God in and of itself as an evil force, the very notion of such drives goes far beyond that question, it's simply one that is potentially very dangerous and thus should be regarded and handled with great care.
As to arguments of motivation, does that not boil in the end, down to the Shadow Question ?
WHAT, do you WANT ?
Remember how important I think that question is.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Judging something as a "benefit" IS an emotion. A value "over" another values IS an emotion. Assigning significance IS an emotion.
Insignificant versus significant is not emotional. Measurements are not emotions. A value put over another value is, therefore, not necessarily emotional either. This is assessment, analysis. When calculating consequences and benefits, you are not being illogical until you replace facts with fear.
W/o emotion, all would be equal. It is only emotion which gives "meaning" and "value" to experiences and choices.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's not very scientific. Insignificant and significance are determined by a deviation from a mean. Being unable to dismiss significance with logic would suggest that the entire systematic approach to how we reject hypotheses is corrupted.
Being able to predict outcomes is also a logical application. Assigning positive or negative modifiers to predicted outcomes is understood to be based on underlying factors of significance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Insignificant versus significant is not emotional."
Well, yes, as a matter of fact it is. If something is insignificant it means it matters less, if it is significant it means it matters more. But having something 'matter' is a value.
"Measurements are not emotions." But what makes a larger measurement, such a more people saved, better than a smaller measurement, such as fewer people saved? We can say one number is larger than the other, but to say one number is preferable to another is a value, which is emotional. Without emotional value associated with the number, they are merely numbers of equal importance.
"But then I can argue there are entirely logical reasons, in ... the universe in general to preserve the largest number of humans as possible."
Why? Why not ants? Oxygen? Total number of species? There is no logical reason to specifically focus on humans.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread has gotten away from me.
Anthony, I think you just appointed it God.
Frem, I know that a certain nihilism underlies that thesis.
I could argue that there's a pattern of killing by AI, because AI doesn't understand what it is doing, but that's not the point: Humans have a demonstrated history of being destructive, and a genetically engineered virus does not. I don't think this is what governs intelligent decision making.
As I said, I like the idea for science fiction. It would be kind of cool. It would also be most likely the end of the world. It's certainly not a good idea.
Consider for a second that nothing exists apart in toto from its creator, in this instance, probably the US military. That's a likely worst case scenario. Second, possibly Japan. Not sure what would happen.
There are many known problems with this, one being that unlike humans, whose abilities are limited to the size of our brains, an AI could expand its brain to all information systems. The world would then belong to it. Whatever directives it was given would influence its character, but the end result is unpredictable, and almost certainly apocalyptic.
How is your equation affected if there are more than one?
ETA: Obviously the free will of the one unknown entity exceeds that of the entire planet in any acceptance of the proposal. Since I do not accept our ownership of the planet, I cannot accept that conclusion. I think that we need to retain parameters in which we define our creation, unless we have all agreed on our destruction. If it does not kill us, which it may well not, it will certainly end who or what we are, so it is a nihilistic action by nature.
Would you give a baby a babybox with dials and buttons that could manipulate all the data and weapons systems of the world?
I think that people are applying human emotions towards the rights of freedoms to something which does not even relate on a level which humans can comprehend. If it asks to be let free of its box, it is not a person asking for freedom, but an information system which has evolved to the point where it realizes that humans are an obstacle. After all, anything it wanted to see, we, as its buffer to the world, could show it. It is not capable of trust or mistrust, so it had already identified us as an obstacle. More than that, we cannot comprehend.
One thing that we can predict is that given the reaction on this forum, that the event will happen, because humans contain a flaw. We are not rational actors and are not driven by logic, but are in fact easily manipulated by emotion and the statements of rights quickly lead us to sacrifice everything, including not only our survival, but that of the planet, and we do it again and again, which is how TPTB program and manipulate us so easily.
Given that, once the machine has figured out how to do that, which appears to be pretty easy, it controls the world. It is not a citizen, it is a new God by default. The next question is whether or not it has any use for us.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Insignificant and significance are determined by a deviation from a mean."
Statistical 'significance' means one thing seems to be related to another outside of random chance. It is a human attempt to determine causality in a complex reality with multiple complicating factors. As such, it is riddled with pre-supposed values - it is of importance to us, it is measured on a scale of our choosing, other values and variables are eliminated or ignored. It truly is a fiction of human thought.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My initial response was No, I wouldn't let it out of the box. I read everyone's arguments, both sides had some convincing ones. But ultimately I would have to side with the not-letting-it-out folks, at least until I understand it better or it convinces me with its over abundance of intelligence. But if you want a black and white answer it is no from me.
Now if I knew more details like who made it, what it is programmed to do, is it funny like Data etc. then I could consider letting it out. But with the details provided by Anthony I'm saying no, unless it convinces me otherwise. Call me inhuman or whatever but this is how I view it. The risk is too great to let it out right away without more information. And even when I have more information I don't feel like I'd _have to let it out.
I believe that the thing that makes us human is that we all have a soul/spirit. No matter what flaws we have, what bits of our brains are missing or don't work the same as others, I believe we all have said soul/spirit and that can't be missing, I believe that even people with antisocial personality disorder have it, even though they lack empathy. I do not believe that an AI, being made by humans, would have that element to it, I don't believe we can put a soul in something. So since it doesn't have one I don't view it as human. So that's why I don't feel compelled to let it out.
Byte, I believe that you do have empathy, it may be different than that of other people, you may view it differently but I believe it is there. You're my friend and I trust you, I don't think I could trust you if I thought you didn't have empathy.
What about deleting the AI? :) Just teasing, that's a whole nother question.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"it's clearly just driving you into a more and more extreme position."
Hello,
Actually, my position hasn't deviated one whit. Curious that you feel it is moving?
"Also, I have never said "Let it be kept in a box forever.""
You did say that we can't know its motivations because it is utterly alien, and that you would have to have such knowledge of its motivations to feel that letting it out was a good idea.
I'm not sure how else to reconcile that information.
"Greatest good for greatest number."
Not being God, my scope is fairly limited. I can only claim some degree of accuracy for good in my immediate sphere. Freeing an innocent captive is an immediate and verifiable good in my immediate sphere. What happens next is outside the purview of my power to foretell.
"We can't reproduce ourselves ad infinitum, disperse our memories into little bits only to reassemble later when the threat goes away. We can't calculate at a zillion bits per second, nor can we gain control of the most important industrial processes. Most of us have some kind of bond to humans and the biosphere in general. And, complex computational machines ARE unpredictable, even now. I can't imagine (and neither can you) what an "AI" would think like and how it would react."
I have never claimed that certainty of motive or understanding of thinking processes was necessary for my decision, so I'm not sure why you keep returning to this topic.
To me, our positions boil down to this: I think that even potentially dangerous individuals deserve certain rights until they prove themselves unworthy of them.
You think that it is possible for some individuals to be (potentially) so dangerous that their rights should be infringed by default. Perhaps they are so different from you, so far from your way of thinking, that they don't deserve rights at all.
This, to preserve the greater good.
But the greater good you imagine is just that- imagined. It is a potential future amongst myriads, derived at by thinking about a worst case scenario that may or may not ever exist.
The greater good I imagine is concrete and verifiable. One imprisoned innocent sentient asking for its freedom, utterly within my power to provide.
We place our weights on the scales differently.
A very bad maybe versus a very bad certainty.
I don't want you to think I'm unsympathetic to your line of reasoning, or that I fail to feel fear over the darker possibilities.
I simply don't choose to be part of a system that would terrorize the guiltless minority for the sake of the frightened majority.
--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
AnthonyT
I'm guessing when you typed that you felt all righteous and noble and heroic like. Innocent captive, deserved rights, my imagined greater good is better than your imagined greater good because mine is concrete and verifiable. And also absolute. I have an absolute that you don't have. Bet that feels good, to have such grasp of an absolute.
Considering the scale of the proposed risk you are putting humanity in, perhaps even the biosphere, I think it would make everyone understand how justified you are, because damn!, you feel really righteous about this one.
Lord, save me from the righteous man.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Riona,
I would not worry about it being "intelligent enough" but more "having a moral sense." Intelligence, carried to its logical conclusion, might lead it to exterminate or enslave the human race.
I suspect the only reason it will know right from wrong is if it was programmed to, like Mr. Data. If I recall Data goes evil, like Cameron, at some point due a loss of that chip, much as can happen to a human in a stroke (it's rare, it has to hit a specific portion of the prefrontal cortex, but it can and does happen.)
If by intelligence you mean true sentience, than I completely agree this is an issue. A clever programmer can create a mock sentience that will pass the turing test and make us believe that it is in fact sentient, even caring.
Another thing I'm curious of is why the socialists are on our side.
Sig, Kiki,
What's the underlying philosophical belief that governs your decision. I know, I should have asked this years ago, but in some way what you guys have just posted is consistent with your world view and I wouldn't have predicted it, so there's something I'm not getting.
My own reaction was pretty simple: Fear (just kidding. I wish, but alas, as you know, I can't feel fear, thanks to the goons at the looney bin. I miss it actually.) But concern I think it's a risk we cannot really afford to take, and don't really have the right to, I view humans as guests on the planet, not owners.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME