I suspect that an aligned super-intelligence could figure out what to do and persuade people to do it, except if people automatically disregard what it says because they know they’d be persuaded whether it was aligned or not.
So would people be persuaded or would they disregard it? My bet would be that it persuades people to do what’s necessary given sufficient lead time.
For this reason I suspect alignment could constitute a solution without us having to ask it to do anything too drastic.
The problem I see with these arguments is that they all make the AI to be superintelligent already, but that’s not a given? Or rather, I think doing this reliably requires far more intelligence than just doing something destructive. Defending requires more smarts than attacking, if it’s even possible.
Interesting take! Wouldn’t that go under “Types of AI (hardware) regulation may be possible where the state actors implementing the regulation are aided by aligned AIs”?
Interesting discussion.
I suspect that an aligned super-intelligence could figure out what to do and persuade people to do it, except if people automatically disregard what it says because they know they’d be persuaded whether it was aligned or not.
So would people be persuaded or would they disregard it? My bet would be that it persuades people to do what’s necessary given sufficient lead time.
For this reason I suspect alignment could constitute a solution without us having to ask it to do anything too drastic.
The problem I see with these arguments is that they all make the AI to be superintelligent already, but that’s not a given? Or rather, I think doing this reliably requires far more intelligence than just doing something destructive. Defending requires more smarts than attacking, if it’s even possible.
Interesting take! Wouldn’t that go under “Types of AI (hardware) regulation may be possible where the state actors implementing the regulation are aided by aligned AIs”?