Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scooby1st t1_jdlr8nd wrote

It's an interesting framework and would be worthwhile from an academic perspective.

In reality one of the benefits of those simple and crude rules is exactly that. When you start setting intangible rules such as "aim for the ever-moving target of the latest in human morality", you are leaving a lot of room for interpretation. It may also set a tone of "ethics by majority opinion" which isn't exactly great. I would also take care to not increase computation, this approach that requires creating outputs from various personalities and coming to a consensus of a solution sounds time consuming.

Finally, there's always the concern that selecting from a population of notable humans to align the AI could result in unintended consequences. You are talking about people that rose to the highest ranks of status among humans and weren't afraid to push boundaries. There are some risks in aligning an AI to that.

5

suttyyeah OP t1_jdlt7u8 wrote

Yeah your point about the selection of the personalities is well taken.

Regarding compute, I suspect you're right but that does kind of scare me. Forces of economics are probably going to require systems that are easy to run and scale vs. systems that may be more aligned to human values, so more crude approaches may have their limitations but if they're a lot easier to implement they're going to be the norm.

0