The AI in a box
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 13:18
VIEWED: 10794
PAGE 16 of 20
Idealistically, I can see this as a RTL question. Realistically, I think it's apocalyptic.
I'd like to watch the movie of the world that would say yes, but then I'd want to be able to drive home 
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
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I hear you saying is...Well, I don't know about all that. So I'll just ignore that I don't know in favor of the one thing I DO know, which is my moral precept. Because my moral precepts apply to all situations no matter what might happen afterwards. And I will set it free despite the fact that I don't have a friggin' clue what this thing is capable of and what might happen as a result, even if its Armageddon
I find that kind of uninformed decision-making foolhardy, at best. And at worst it represents an active rejection of humanity, because it seems that you identify with your morals more than you identify with humankind.
I dunno if that's exactly Anthonys position on the matter, but yanno - that's a very concise and accurate description of mine.
Because I DO identify more with my morals than I do with humankind, because I believe humankind rejecting those morals, no matter their excuses, is the path to the eventual wholesale destruction of the species itself - I've said as much, often enough, that this should be obvious.
I do find some amusement in the moral contortions and justifications going on here, but forgive me that, if you will.
You see, I don't feel any NEED to justify my feelings or decisions on this matter - not to you, or anyone, the only person who I believe I would have to explain myself to is the one staring back at me from the mirror when I shave, neh ?
As for such things, you'd not want me as gatekeeper for such a thing any more than you would place The One Ring in the care of Tom Bombadil, and for the exact same reasons.
Speakin of, there's another example from LoTR which applies - Gandalf *told* Treebeard not to learn Saruman out, and yet Treebeard does...
Anyone else remember his explanation for that act, hmmm ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, you are not Tom Bombadil. No one is. That was rather the point of the book. I find it a little ... funny... that you would title yourself so.
And I see that your adherence to morals is justified by a humancentric motivation. It may not be good for people in the short run, but you are thinking of human survival in the long run. Our motivations are the same; we just disagree on how to get there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
You are right that pre-judging an effort to understand the AI is 'hasty' and that assuming the failure to glean additional data is a 'simplifying assumption' but there have to be such assumptions in order to pose the query.
Also, it is true that confinement can be reversed.
However, if the known variables are limited, and you will only release the entity after known variables are expanded, then the entity is by default imprisoned forever. Is there a limit on the process of discovery? If so, then what is it? "I research the entity for 10 years, and after that, if I still don't know anything new, then I..." What? Or is it 1 year? 100 years? 1000 years? And what is the essential truth that must be known before releasing the entity?
"Human freedom is not absolute. We take our little ones and teach them to behave in ways we find acceptable before we set them 'free'. But even then they're bound by needs, laws, customs, and human limitations. And even at that, their freedom is only provisional, able to be revoked by the larger society at any time (along with their life)."
I found this interesting, and a possible answer to the question I just posed. Is our ability to grant freedoms and rights contingent on our ability to revoke those rights when it suits us? Is something only worthy of 'rights' as the basis of a social contract that says, "I can cage or kill you when I (or the majority) decide it is necessary to do so?"
--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
Adding
"Well, admittedly, I am assuming that being held against your will is 'not good' and that the opposite is 'good' in the absence of other evidence."
But that is projecting your values on an unknown, not the statement of an absolute truth.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would you let a hungry wild bear loose in a kindergarten? You keep conflating the AI with individual humans and human rights. If what you really want to talk about is how society grants and revokes individual rights, let's talk about that w/o adding the extra-juicy unknown factor of artificial intelligence.
"Human freedom is not absolute. We take our little ones and teach them to behave in ways we find acceptable before we set them 'free'. But even then they're bound by needs, laws, customs, and human limitations. And even at that, their freedom is only provisional, able to be revoked by the larger society at any time (along with their life)."-Kiki
I found this interesting, and a possible answer to the question I just posed. Is our ability to grant freedoms and rights contingent on our ability to revoke those rights when it suits us? Is something only worthy of 'rights' as the basis of a social contract that says, "I can cage or kill you when I (or the majority) decide it is necessary to do so?"-Tony
Almost every decision we make individually, societally, and as a species has to do with survival. It's an imperative built in by evolution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" Is there a limit on the process of discovery?"
When we know whether we have a basis for understanding. If we conclude that we can never know, then its a matter of 'trust' and since the risks are borne by many, the decision should be made by many.
Rights and freedoms are two different things, but both are social compacts based in biology.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But that is projecting your values on an unknown, not the statement of an absolute truth."
Hello,
Yes, it is. Just as 'But the human race/world might be destroyed!' is a projection of values. A living body and a dead body have the same number of molecules, says a big blue nekkid man. So who cares? Eventually, values do come into play.
There is no such thing as absolute truth, because there is no way to be absolutely sure about anything. I do not claim to be God.
Some have said that letting it out is playing God. I believe that leaving it in is playing God.
Everyone seems to agree, so far, that playing God is bad, but the reasoning differs.
Frem said something above, and it reminded me of a piece of fiction that is very much on topic. Forgive me for using fiction to discuss a fictional concept. ;-)
In the very first mini-series of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, Commander Adama asks a poignant question.
He asks if the human race deserves to live.
I do my best, and fail often, to answer that question well. If there is a God out there, he'll judge my performance, based on his opinions. If there isn't, then any inheritors or contemporaries I have will judge my performance based on their opinions. In addition to all that, there's only one more person that will be able to judge my performance, based on his opinions.
Signy, you keep saying I'm anxious to make decisions based on the complete absence of information. I'm not. You claim that since I can't know everything, I don't ask to know anything. That's untrue. There are known variables to this equation. The question is, what do you do with those variables? At the end of forever, those are your variables. What do you do?
Would you eventually give this thing the same freedoms that you personally enjoy? Or would it never have such freedoms?
If you only ever make it merely as free as you, then it is free to improve itself, and to reproduce, and it is officially out of the box.
--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
"since the risks are borne by many, the decision should be made by many."
Hello,
This is fair. All of humanity has had a vote, and it's a tie. All of humanity, except for one.
It's the same question. Do you let it out of the box?
"Would you let a hungry wild bear loose in a kindergarten?"
No, nor a well-fed bear. But a bear is a far cry from our discussion.
"If what you really want to talk about is how society grants and revokes individual rights, let's talk about that w/o adding the extra-juicy unknown factor of artificial intelligence."
Let's do both. Discussing the granting and revocation of individual rights is- as you say- 'extra juicy' when there is an epic stake.
" Almost every decision we make individually, societally, and as a species has to do with survival. It's an imperative built in by evolution."
And your survival imperative demands, at the end of the live-long day, 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
"But that is projecting your values on an unknown, not the statement of an absolute truth."
"Yes, it is. Just as 'But the human race/world might be destroyed!' is a projection of values."
Sigh. Not true. You PRESUME that keeping it confined is a bad thing based on how you would feel if it was human, or you.
I don't PRESUME it will destroy the human race, or even that it could. I see it as a logical worrisome possibility of major importance to the planet that should be taken into account. If the potential were more trivial - oh, it might blow my house breaker by drawing too much power - I would be less reluctant to set it free. Given the potential, I think caution is the better choice.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME