<div dir="ltr"><div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122" target="_blank"><http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122></a></pre></blockquote></div><div><sigh> The technical term 'strong AI', has reached its graveyard in the popular lexicon. I read the first box "Strong AI invented" and saw "{Hypothesis} invented". Interesting to watch Searle's terminology get bent and broken by a crowd and ignorance. A bit like ethics, really.<br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 2016-05-26 17:18, BillK wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122" target="_blank"><http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122></a>
Serious point though.
If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
greater or lesser extent)?
Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What is "totally ethical"? <br>
<br>
[Philosopher hat on!]<br>
<br>
Normally when we say something like that, we mean somebody who
follows the One True moral system perfectly. Or at least one moral
system perfectly. There are no humans that do it, so we do not have
reliable intuitions about what it would mean. Now, a caricature
view of moral perfection is somebody being a saintly wuss: super
kind, but exploitable by imperfect and nasty actors. <br>
<br>
But there is no reason to think this is the only choice. You could
imagine a morally perfect Objectivist, following rules of
enlightened selfishness. Or a perfect average utilitarian maximizing
the average happiness of all entities in our future lightcone.
Neither would be a pushover ("If I give you my wallet there will be
less resources for my von Neumann probe program. So, no, I will not
give it to you. In fact, I will now force you to give me your money
- I see that this will enable a further quintillion minds. Thank
you.") Convergent instrumental goal behavior likely tends to turn
wussy nice agents non-wussy.<br>
<br>
There is an interesting issue about what to do with imperfect moral
agents if you are a perfect one. A Kantian agent would presumably
respect their autonomy and try to guide them to see how to obey the
categorical imperative. A consequentialist agent would try to
manipulate them to behave better, but the means might be anything
from incentives to persuation to brainwashing. A virtue agent might
not care at all, just demonstrating its own excellence. A paperclip
maximizing agent would find non-paperclip maximizers a waste of
resources and work to remove them.<br>
<br>
In fact, most pure moral systems are very bad at "live and let
live". We humans tend to de facto behave like that because our power
is about equal; entities that are orders of magnitude more powerful
may not behave like that unless we get the value code just right. <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>