0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
First time poster, so please forgive my mistakes.
I have a theory on how to solve the alignment problem when we dont know ourselves how to convey good and bad to an AI.
(plus he has free will to obey, leave or question the decisions made by them, or question their qualifications- this is very important. An agent without free will for assessment of important factors would waste both thier life and the superiors too)
An AI doesnt have to be good from the start - First a translator must be made to convert human speech into instructions the machine understands.
Then it must obey its first superior it meets.
compare it to net human benefit
If the newer superior has better outcomes, it must declare a leave from the first and now obey the next. If this continues, it will gradually find someone who can tell it to do the right thing more better than anyone else on the planet.
The next AI will also try out this path and either find the same person
or find someone who can do equal benefit but in some other direction. The subsequent AIs would branch out until all valued human principle is being maximised to the fullest extent, while the AIs have no individual destructive policy.
An AI doesnt have to be good from the start
Best way to solve the problem seems to be to examine how the same problem is solved with us humans.
What if we built a biologically accurate AI policy
I also didnt mention the architecture of the system the AI runs on.
Who decides this result - the top five(arbitrary) AIs of a particular period, say a year of study, into their version of human benefit.
Also rogue AIs will have less power since they would be contrary to the top 5's ideology and it itself will be human benefit to stop this AI.
& Welcome to TNS!
I hope A.I. is/will be preprogrammed & taught to ignore Environmentalism, Pacifism, Religion, Cruelty to Animals etc etc.
Ps - Once it figures out, We are the Only EVIL on this planet, we'd be Terminated.
That's the whole point. We can't be terminated if human development indexes are used and the AI is free to disobey, evolve and die by other AIs wanting to protect us
If they can exist independently from humans, then protecting humans will be a burden for them.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 01:27:15If they can exist independently from humans, then protecting humans will be a burden for them.Except they won't, since my AI is more A than I. It's more of a tool like a tractor or shovel. We are the movers and they improve the movement.
It will follow humans but evaluate their decisions based on a unique preference, say child mortality or median gdp by simulating the outcome.
Ps - Perhaps We are Destined to sow the seeds of Our own Destruction.
“Most important, the intelligence that will emerge will continue to represent the human civilization, which is already a human-machine civilization. In other words, future machines will be human, even if they are not biological. This will be the next step in evolution, the next high-level paradigm shift, the next level of indirection.”― Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biologyhttps://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/47744.Ray_Kurzweil?page=3
.Take the typical trolley car scenario, where one is faced with a choice of harming (killing?) few (one?) or many. Despite the debate around the issue, when the situation comes up in real life, usually the many is chosen, especially if the one is looking at you and the many are a little further away. Do you really want your AI to follow that tendency?
If this situation comes up and my system is already set up, then it will go somewhat like this:AI #5463 is the example AI. Let's call him Ralph. Ralph has been asked by a human to oversee a trolley switch. He's piloting a remote body, but is hosted in a server in England. He notices that he must decide soon whom to save, so he runs his own evaluation function - say net mortality, and simulates and figures out that pulling the switch will result in a better outcome. He pulls the switch and logs his action in an internet database. The top 5 AI council review the decision based on their own evaluation functions, and the verdict is 3-2 if favour of the decision. They issue a request to update the standing of Ralph among the AIs.
so she disconnects her connection to the remote body after electomagnetically stopping the train
He gives her permission and she improves the gating system to avoid such failure states.
I can end 'suffering' quickly for the whole world, but despite that being touted as a high (universal?) moral, doing so would not be a moral act. The AI needs to know this, because if you just instruct it to minimize suffering wherever possible, it might just find that to be an optimal solution.
Are you referring to killing people swiftly so they have no chance to feel the pain?