I try to address in my “analysis through swerving around obstacles” section.
The argument you’re giving against the scenario I spell out here is “surely the AIs will instead be designed to promote a particular set of mandated policies on how you should reflect and update over time.” I agree that that’s conceivable. But it also seems kind of fucked up and illiberal.
I want to explore a scenario where there isn’t a centrally enforced policy on this stuff, where people are able to use the AIs as they wish. I think that this is a plausible path society could take (e.g. it’s kind of analogous to how you’re allowed to isolate yourself and your family now).
However, I didn’t assume that the USG stepped in and prevented this scenario. I thought that it’s OpenAI’s Model Spec, Claude’s Constitution or something similar that would prevent an aligned AI grom being used as an absolute shield, since SOTA Specs do arguably require the AI to be objective.
I don’t think it’s obviously appropriate for AI companies to decide exactly what reflection process and exposure to society people who use their AIs need to have. And people might prefer to use AIs that do conform to their beliefs if they are allowed to buy access to them. So I think you might have to ban such AIs in order to prevent people from using them.
I try to address in my “analysis through swerving around obstacles” section.
The argument you’re giving against the scenario I spell out here is “surely the AIs will instead be designed to promote a particular set of mandated policies on how you should reflect and update over time.” I agree that that’s conceivable. But it also seems kind of fucked up and illiberal.
I want to explore a scenario where there isn’t a centrally enforced policy on this stuff, where people are able to use the AIs as they wish. I think that this is a plausible path society could take (e.g. it’s kind of analogous to how you’re allowed to isolate yourself and your family now).
However, I didn’t assume that the USG stepped in and prevented this scenario. I thought that it’s OpenAI’s Model Spec, Claude’s Constitution or something similar that would prevent an aligned AI grom being used as an absolute shield, since SOTA Specs do arguably require the AI to be objective.
I don’t think it’s obviously appropriate for AI companies to decide exactly what reflection process and exposure to society people who use their AIs need to have. And people might prefer to use AIs that do conform to their beliefs if they are allowed to buy access to them. So I think you might have to ban such AIs in order to prevent people from using them.