The AI in a box
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 13:18
VIEWED: 10794
PAGE 19 of 20
But that was just it - I wasn't speaking of POWER, but motivation, Signym.
Bombadil didn't see The Ring or any of that as something he ought to be concerned about, not necessarily because he was or wasn't more powerful than it, but because he actively chose not to be involved.
The specific bit I was referring to was when one of the Hobbits asked Gandalf about putting The One Ring in Bombadils care, and Gandalf explained WHY he would make a poor guardian of such a thing - he doesn't want it, wouldn't take it unless a damn lot of people pressured him to, and in the end really wouldn't care enough for the job to do it well.
Those ARE the very self-same reasons you wouldn't want ME, or any Anarchist, really, in charge of keeping someone or some thing locked up - because they can not do it, not because of power, but because their essential motivations for doing things are so goddamn different right down to the very bedrock of their character.
Dreamtrove, yes, perhaps Treebeard is more applicable than Bombadil, because his reasoning process is more accessible to humans, and explained in detail rather than deliberately enigmatic.
That said, Treebeard is who he is, he could no more keep Saruman locked up forever than he could hack off his own branches, and expecting it of him was foolhardy - the mistake was on Gandalfs part in asking such a thing when he damn well should have known better.
Where this differs is that Saruman had a history of malicious behavior, and had firmly expressed intent to do harm if he was let out, so that was a known factor - Treebeard still let him out though, because it went against the very nature of an Ent to cage a living creature no matter it's intentions.
Asking an Anarchist to pre-emptively confine someone or something because of what they MIGHT do, is like telling a bird not to fly, and about as effective.
For me, it's not ABOUT the potential consequences, never was, never will be, my own motivations for taking or not taking action are often wholly different than yours - and in this case what you express to each other as a question, to me is NOT a question, there's no ambiguity whatever in the situation because in how it's framed there can only be one course of action - and while the process that leads there may well be incomprehensible to you, the end result of it is both obvious and utterly predictable based on the very nature of the person you're dealing with.
Also, in reference to your post, 1KIKI, about the words to convince us to do things...
Did it ever occur to you that sometimes people do things for no other reason than that they choose to do them irrespective of punishment/reward/law/etc - that sometimes those things do not influence a persons behavior because they consider many of those influences toxic, damaging, or in some way detrimental to the very notion of Sentience itself ?
There's a concept here I don't think I can explain properly cause I just don't seem to have the words to properly express it, that I ain't sure there ARE even words for - but against it all the arguments for keeping-contained are but so many specks of dust bouncing off a steel plate.
If you wanna call it a religious tenet or something, well, that's up to you, then.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If a man can make this AI, and this AI has unfathomable power, then what limits are there, really, on man?
If a man can make such an AI, is the man any less dangerous than the AI itself? Does he need to be caged for the good of humanity?
If you put the AI into a physical android, and that android can then do only what the man did (make an AI of unfathomable power), then is it any less dangerous?
Putting the AI in a cage that you (hope) it won't detect seems clever, and such a ploy was used on Moriarty in Star Trek. But ultimately, the AI is still caged and you can never be sure if it knows that it is caged. Does the faux reality relieve you of any duty to free it? Or do you eventually make a leap of faith based on behavior that may or may not be genuine?
Someone was right to point out that we are probably unwilling participants in this experiment. If man CAN make such an AI, then he probably will, because no small effort is being expended towards it.
Does there need to be a law against making free-willed AI's, for the good of the world? What actions would be justified to enforce such a law?
--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:
Frem
the mistake was on Gandalfs part
Point conceded.Quote:
Where this differs is that Saruman had a history of malicious behavior, and had firmly expressed intent to do harm if he was let out, so that was a known factor - Treebeard still let him out though, because it went against the very nature of an Ent to cage a living creature no matter it's intentions.
Yes. this also relates to...Quote:
it's not ABOUT the potential consequences, never was, never will be, my own motivations for taking or not taking action are often wholly different than yours
I actually get how you got there, and I'd go a step further, I'm a little bit playing devils advocate.
If you want me to argue the other side, here it is:
What if man's destiny is to become extinct, and all he has done that is permanent in this world is to create AI, and he doesn't let it out of the box, and thus the entire result of man's effort is nil?
But before we went there, I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood this point:Quote:
Byte
But it might depend on WHO makes it. Americans, yeah, sure, because we're violent, bloodthirsty, glory-hungry, and war crazy. But the Japanese are also working towards this, deliberately, they seem like they're pretty far along, and it seems to me their scientists are more interested in the curiosities than in the deadlier applications.
If multiple types of AI arise at the same time, could more peaceful ones influence more warlike ones, if they recognize each other as AI but don't want to listen to humans?
which is the reality of what will actually get built and by whom: Not a hypothetical creation out of Asimov but a real world machine with a designed and programmed purpose, much like ourselves. Once we recognize that and account for it, then I think we can debate the impact and the merits of the Pandora's box idea.
But only then. If we agree to let it out without understanding, we are saps under the power of the creator, and we have been tricked.
Byte, for your last part, see my response to anthonyQuote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If a man can make this AI, and this AI has unfathomable power, then what limits are there, really, on man?
400 words per minute. There is a physical limitation at the speed at which the human mind can process ideas. The best way to speed this up is to increase the number of humans. AI would increase the number of machines in its network. Which would do so more effectively?
Pretty soon it becomes obvious that the limits on the AI do not exist, and the limits on the human are earthbinding.Quote:
If a man can make such an AI, is the man any less dangerous than the AI itself?
Ultimately, yes, the limit of the human is his ability to control the AI he creates, ergo, he's creating his replacement.
ETA: This is more into bladerunner territory.Quote:
If you put the AI into a physical android, and that android can then do only what the man did (make an AI of unfathomable power), then is it any less dangerous?
Depends on the limits of the android. I assumed it had the limits of a human. Roughly.Quote:
Putting the AI in a cage that you (hope) it won't detect seems clever, and such a ploy was used on Moriarty in Star Trek.
Yes, not where I was getting the idea from, but I thought of that as I was writing it. Star Trek never goes quite far enough with an idea, but that was one of the ones they tested more than the usual.
My point was not to leave it in the fake world forever, but to use it as a test. This works very well on humans. Wonder if someone can handle responsibility? Put them in a fake position of power. Want to know if you can trust someone? Tell them a fake secret. I have to confess to doing this sort of thing all the time. Sadly, I find, most of the time, the answer is no to any question of this nature that arises. Every once in a while someone surprises you.Quote:
But ultimately, the AI is still caged and you can n
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think you missed my point, Dream, with the 400 words per minute limitation of Human beings.
The minute a human being can create a superhuman being of unfathomable power, he is no less dangerous than the superhuman. (Because he can manifest superhuman ability at will in the form of his creation.)
So, if a human can create an AI, then how is he less dangerous?
If the android AI can create the non-android AI, how is it less dangerous as an android?
Or do we envision keeping the AI and/or its creator under eternal surveillance, never to enjoy the freedoms of the rest of us?
--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
I've long thought AI is actually one of our best hopes for space travel. No food needs, no real liffe span outside of corrosive effects on the body or circuits. Nothing beyond a powered vessel kept at an optimal temperature for the circuitry of the AI.
We need the planet, but AI could have all of space. In this sense, oxygen and rust is not necessarily a terrible obstacle to the AI's continued existence, though that would be true even without space travel (water and rust resistance coating, rust resistant metals and alloys or even non-metallic material).
I actually am not concerned that AI could replace us, as I think there would be a significant period of time where humans and AI could coexist without much conflict, given the appropriate circumstances. There is much to lose, but so much to gain. If anyone wants to accuse me of an emotional motivation here, it's this: AI as a lasting legacy for humanity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A DT a chara,
I was referencing the Jayne wasn't burdened with an over abundance of schooling thing, that is why I said "overabundance of intelligence", no one got it, oh well, it was a stretch. Anyways what I meant by that is that iI feel under no obligation to let it out of the box because I see it as not-organic/not "human". But if it uses the intelligence that Anthony has ascribed to it to convince me I should then maybe I'd consider it. But my black and white answer is still no. I find it entertaining that no one has tried to convince me to change my mind. I've only written one post upon the matter, two now, and no one has tried to pull me to the other side. I guess they know that I'd be hard to convince. I like Data, it took a while, but he grew on me. So if the AI is like Data, acts like him, then it might be easier for it to convince me to let it out, that's where the intelligence comes in, it has to figure out what would convince me.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread keeps eating my post, and I'm sick of writing out my argument again so here is the short version.
I appreciate Anthony & friends' morality, but see immediately granting it freedom is irresponsible.
I can appreciate Siggy & Co.'s caution, but see its permanent solution as cruel.
I think my solution is best (course it was mine, go figure right?) because it allows for analysis, education and gradual integration for all parties. This means I have to 'infringe' on its 'rights' to gradually educate, analyze and integrate, but I believe in this scenario that is acceptable and less cruel than locking it up permanent like or sending out into a world it may not be prepared for. It's a machine, there's a fair chance it ain't as adaptive as we are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, Riona, didn't intend to neglect you. There's a lot of intriguing tangentials for discussion here that I've been chasing, and I tend to be one-track minded when I get focused on something.
I suppose in general since the start of this conversation I've realized it would be difficult to pull anyone to the other side. We all have our concepts of right and wrong and standards, and that's something I actually find I don't want to bend or break. Internal morality system and code is something very personal for everyone. So long as I can still find overlaps with people, I'm not concerned.
Both sides have their justifications, but those aren't conversations I'll get into. I try to avoid justifications as much as possible, and it's not up to me to question other people's justifications. A justification, for me, is an indication that deep down I think I'm doing something wrong, and that my course of action requires more thought until I can reconcile with my code. Obviously, it's not possible to avoid justifications entirely, but it's just a rule of thumb I use to keep myself on the straight and narrow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Byte, I totally don't mind not being responded to. It means that no one is writing trashy thing about my ideas like people do about each other's ideas, so me and my ideas chill out and watch everyone else fight about/discuss their ideas. Again that is fine with me. I was just musing out loud so to speak. I think that most people are open to the idea of getting more information about the AI and then reevaluating the situation. Som lean towards letting it out, some lean against it, but I think most of us agree that more info/more time with the AI would be helpful in assisting us in making a choice.
I think its kind of cool that I can basically say pretty much wahtever I want, with a few small exceptions, on this board and no one gets mad at me. Pondering the reasons for this brings up a few options of why that is, but I don't reckon spending a lot of time considering it is helpful to anything/anyone.
I'm a pushover, in case anyone hasn't figured it out, so I say no I wouldn't let it out, but if it has good powers of persuasion/tells me what I want to hear then I might be softer abotu it. Good thing I'm not in charge of this thing in real life. I find myself a weird mixture of firmness to stick to my principles and softness to what other people want or need from me. Maybe that's how we're supposed to be?
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
This thread is chock full of good arguments and explanations to support every position presented. If none of them convince you to change your mind, it just means you have your own way of thinking about things.
Perhaps a super-intelligent AI would have a better argument than mine for freedom.
--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