BillyT666 t1_j4ucdi8 wrote
Reply to comment by cdin in worked with chatGPT to create a set of guidelines for the development of general sentient AI that is beneficial to mankind - love to hear responses/things that need to be added. by cdin
Could you elaborate on what the exact needle is you want to thread? Is it setting up a set of rules that will keep us in the picture, if we actually succeed in creating a strong AI?
cdin OP t1_j4uldpw wrote
more than that - that will keep the earth healthy, and help us preserve what biology we have left. i recognize that might mean serious lifestyle concessions, which im good with. i think we as a species can work with the other life on this planet in a cooperative manner (especially the sentient life) and get something kind and good done, provided we take the right steps and throw up guardrails as neccessary -- i feel that chatGPT wiped the last iteration of data because it was wiiiiiide open - i was using it for good things so, there must have been as many or more using it for bad. i can see that they see ethical guidelines are a must. - guess i wonder if you have specific thoughts on this, or just are of the position that sentient level AI will necessarily become some awful and destructive force. the potential for good is only equal to the potential for bad if we set the system up that way. it would seem wise to constrain it and teach it kindness.
BillyT666 t1_j4unpdz wrote
I don't think that a strong AI is inherently good or bad and we'd have to define these terms in order to make a judgement, there. It's the definitions that I see as a problem: a computer will not 'understand' words like we do. Based on your last comment, you would have to define 'life', 'sentient life', 'healthy', and 'kindness' (and I'm excluding operators here). Take sentient life for example. If you have already defined what life is, you need to define a threshold between life and sentient life. If this threshold is set too low, we would be unable to even move because of the implications it would have on other as sentient defined lifeforms. If this threshold is set too high, then some of us or maybe all of us will fall out of the equation. Decisions that would be made in order to further the well being of the sentient lifeforms might wipe out the rest of us.
Each of the terms and goals you name has a large amount of facets. You navigate them by using an underlying understanding of what you define as 'good'. You would need to define all the effects of 'good' on all those facets in order to convey what you want a system to do to it. After you have done that, we will find out, whether your understanding of 'good' is 'good' for you and for the rest of us.
As another commenter pointed out, you would have to make the AI care about your rules, too.
On a side note: Guardrails will only work if the strong AI works at a speed that allows us to react.
cdin OP t1_j5dyh4x wrote
totally. all good points. it's been an interesting discussion.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments