There are a lot of details to fill in, but the proposal seems basically viable, and I find it considerably more compelling than developing autonomous agents (mostly because of disempowerment concerns [if we successfully align powerful agents, we’ll just be gently disempowered]).
I think to a large extent cognition can be largely divorced from volition, so I’m optimistic that humans in the loop architectures do not incur to considerable a penalty compared to unified agents.
Aligned sovereigns in general belong more to theology than to technology. I’m not convinced it’s a consistent/coherent concept, let alone a realizable or desirable one.
There are a lot of details to fill in, but the proposal seems basically viable, and I find it considerably more compelling than developing autonomous agents (mostly because of disempowerment concerns [if we successfully align powerful agents, we’ll just be gently disempowered]).
I think to a large extent cognition can be largely divorced from volition, so I’m optimistic that humans in the loop architectures do not incur to considerable a penalty compared to unified agents.
([if disempowerment bothers you, then an aligned agent doesn’t do it (to you)])
Uhm, the power differential between an aligned sovereign and humanity makes any autonomy humans have conditional on the sovereign’s goodwill.
I find they concept of a sovereign nanny unpleasant.
Aligned sovereigns in general belong more to theology than to technology. I’m not convinced it’s a consistent/coherent concept, let alone a realizable or desirable one.
And its will follows your will. The question dissolves.
Is it sovereign, if you it obeys your programming, which obligates it to empower and integrate you as soon as it can? Yes, no, it doesn’t matter.