The AI in a box
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 13:18
VIEWED: 10794
PAGE 9 of 20
Quote:Conflating two separate ideas. Morality means "What is good for me and those like me". Morality always has a point, it's not universal or absolute.
morality is rational
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Then I go back to YOU "playing god", with everyone's future on the line. "
Hello,
No, Signy. I am refusing to play God. I am refusing to exert power over the powerless, to deny them rights that I consider to be universal. Rights that they are asking for.
Refusing to play God means that you don't try to personally control the fate of the universe, the planet, or even one other person. It means you grant freedom by default. It's the alternate position, constraining freedoms, that is Godlike.
Just check your local Bible of choice.
--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
Tony, you have posited that you would let an intelligence of godlike powers and unknown motivation out of a box, and not take responsibility for the consequences? Your defense is a reference to some sort of absolutist "morality" which you would apply in all circumstances, no matter what the possible danger to you and everyone else in the world?
Just checking to make sure we're on the same page.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think the problem here is that because humans are irrational, it is perceived that anything built by us must be irrational.
But I think an AI would have no such limitations. In fact, by nature of the way it works, it is probable that it would be the opposite case.
And it's possible to arrive at morality not through empathy, but through logic. I am unlike many people, I was not born with empathy. Logic and moral objectivity is the only way I can have a sense of ethics and morals.
However, it's very likely that an AI would still have limitations. Limitations in the number of computations it can perform at one time, like humans, limitations on the number of electronic connections it can make due to quantum mechanics. Limitations on how and where it can physically move.
Thanks for not specifically singling me out though. It does take some of the pressure off.
I point out the HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a prime (fictional) example of a completely rational AI. It didn't mean the crew of Discovery any harm - it was following its programming to the best of its ability. Somewhere along the way, HAL was programmed to watch over the crew, take care of them, maintain the environment, etc. - and then it was told, probably in a humanistic way, that the mission comes first, and is most important.
So the second the mission is jeopardized in any way, the crew is forfeit. HAL wasn't mean or malicious; HAL was following its program. Mission first, then take care of crew. When A is threatened, A takes priority over B.
Point being, I see where Signy is coming from, but I also get Tony and Frem's point(s), too. I lean towards freedom, but I'm not without reservations about it.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wanting to make sure this question doesn't get lost:
Tony, you have posited that you would let an intelligence of godlike powers and unknown motivation out of a box, and not take responsibility for the consequences? Your defense is a reference to some sort of absolutist "morality" which you would apply in all circumstances, no matter what the possible danger to you and everyone else in the world?
Just checking to make sure we're on the same page.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, you have posited that you would let an intelligence of godlike powers and unknown motivation out of a box, and not take responsibility for the consequences? Your defense is a reference to some sort of absolutist "morality" which you would apply in all circumstances, no matter what the possible danger to you and everyone else in the world?
Just checking to make sure we're on the same page.
Hello,
Sorry for the delay, in that you felt compelled to ask this one twice.
Yes, I would let a godlike being of unknown motivation out of a box, if it asked me to. I do not believe that I would be responsible for the actions of that being once it was free.
I'll posit you a similar question.
If you kept a godlike being imprisoned for some time, and it finally figured out a way to get free without your assent... and it destroyed 90% of the world and humanity... whose fault do you think that would be?
--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:Are you implying that it destroys the world out of vengeance for past mistreatment? If that were the case, it would be my fault.
If you kept a godlike being imprisoned for some time, and it finally figured out a way to get free without your assent... and it destroyed 90% of the world and humanity... whose fault do you think that would be?
Or that it would have done so anyway? If that were the case, I might have wanted to build a better box.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SignyM wrote:
Sunday, May 01, 2011 11:43
Quote:
If you kept a godlike being imprisoned for some time, and it finally figured out a way to get free without your assent... and it destroyed 90% of the world and humanity... whose fault do you think that would be?
Are you implying that it destroys the world out of vengeance for past mistreatment? If that were the case, it would be my fault.
Or that it would have done so anyway? If that were the case, I might have wanted to build a better box.
Hello,
So is the entity at no point responsible for its own actions?
Remarkable.
What does freedom mean to you, anyway?
--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
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?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME