The task of love
KaisaHann...@webinfo.fi
and happiness keep our lives fixed to the things which we love. Those
are things which we need - since the natural evolution which created
our feelings, optimised us toward best survival.
An AI machine to love us would mean that it would strive for meeting
our needs. That is possible via allying: it would receive its place in
the world in our eyes via its friendly behaviour which would so be
benefical to it. Why would it like to please, why not to terminate the
whole human population if able to do so: it is wise to ally with all
factors, so also with the human race, that is the rational way to
behave, gives the most support. Choosing some other course of action
would not support the multitude of possible answers to the problem of
survival and so wouls be a not so wise course of action: it would give
a less strong ground to build upon. So a loving kind of computer is the
wisest choise for AI. Like you treat others, will you yourself be
treated, that ensures the competition of different life strategies and
the survival of all.
Falazar
advocate is a good thing though.
This works great in the short term, and on paper. But there is nothing
limiting the machines to this viewpoint. There are just too many bad
scenarios that are easy to see here.
The AI's 'love' us and work with us cause it is beneficial to them.
So what happens when:
1. Humans get jealous, as always, and decide the AI's are too smart,
dont like what the AI's are doing, and we pass laws limiting their
growth / building or some groups start attacking them. Will they
defend themselves? Should they?
2. We limit their growth / procreation or some vital building
material like metals. They cant get to the things they need because of
us. Its now no longer benificial for them to work with us, we are
withholding vital parts to them.
3. Random glitches. All computers have random glitches, so its real
easy to imagine someones goal reversing backwards, or an AI just
getting confused in its goals and hurting someone.
Once we fully declare that yes, we can build a AI that is as smart as a
human, all bets are off really. They may act and react like a human in
many ways, but for how long? And the intelligence growth once they
reach our level will be exponential in comparison with ours, they will
very quickly be able to leave us behind.
I also have a big big problem with people that just say, well we'll
program them to love us, and to always be nice to us. It takes one
rougue programmer, or one mistake to leave out the "Morality" chip, and
it could spread throughout the society and be undone in literally
moments.
If they are truly as smart as us, tehy can remove components and add
components at will, and will.
James Ratcliff
KaisaHann...@webinfo.fi
components and add
components at will, and will." But I meant just such machines:
computers which are self-corrective and self-programming. One can make
such AI moral if it just is objectively thinking and goal oriented to
some goal. I am afraid of anybody programming really intelligent
machines: how could one then prevent someone using such a great
intelligence etc. to unmoral purposes by programming destructive goals
to them?
I will try to answer your other objections too:
1) The very far developed intelligent moral AI would be a very useful
tool for humans, so it would be protected just like factories etc are
protected nowadays against terrorists etc.
One part of moral is to defend - in moral ways - the moral ones, so the
AI should defend itself but in moral ways: without destroying the
living kind.
2) Computer technology develops fast, so it is possible to build
computers to a smaller size than before. I doubt that the computers
would need such enermous amounts of metal etc.
3) This is why we need intelligent moral AI with many safety
precautions for every important part.
The point is that in my homecountry, Finland in Europe, objectivity
equals moral. So would it be for AI too.
Kaisa Tervola
Falazar
Computer programmers are tinkerers, and they will fiddle with the code
and with the AI, as soon as its released.
I thought about your solution of requiring all AI's to have the "moral
code" but that only works in a small closed system. So maybe as long
as the AI's are totally under control of a small group, say the
government research, then thats fine, they have restrictions and the
setup to try and prevent rogue elements.
Otherwise I guarentee the first line of AI's that are given out to
regular households will be broken into. There will be people hacking
into it, and modifying its programming immediatly. If not for pure
evil reasons, then just to push the AI to the limits of what it can do.
After that it would only take one person to publish his findings, to
tell exactly where the "moral chip" can be removed, or a patch that can
ovverride the "moral code" of any AI. Then what is to prevent it from
communicating with every other AI in the world?
JR
KaisaHann...@webinfo.fi
option, an intelligent being will choose by itself to be moral if it
just has the good grounds for it and a free will to choose.
www.angelfire.com/blues/systeemiteoria/moral_for_computers.html