Shall we bite the apple?
Hello community, nice to meet you here.
For a long time I have been tormented by a question that I can’t seem to answer alone.
Let’s talk hypothetically. Let’s assume that I have developed a method that can be mapped in a small program. This method, once started, will develop an AGI by itself.
The program works independently, evolves and gets better from minute to minute. Not just better with one problem, but with any number of problems. The algorithm is able to rewrite and adapt itself. The algorithm follows this path of continuous improvement until it ends in an AGI.
This algorithm consists of several individual components, which together give this algorithm the capabilities described above. Imagine that I wrote and tested each of these individual components separately from each other in an alpha release (error driven design). And further imagine, each of these parts delivered the expected result.
The only thing left is to write these components in a faster language like C ++ or Assembler, bring them together and press ‘Start’.
My dilemma is that I cannot ensure that the process can be stopped once it has started. I’m curious.
So I sit here and think. Should I do it and provide evidence? Or should I just wait, do nothing and watch someone else come up with the idea how to do it?
Or should I disclose the process without a program? Just publish it so that everyone can read it? A gift to humanity. The question is justified when you consider the risks.
But if you want to test it in a safe environment, then it’s expensive and costs a lot, a lot of money. I am getting impatient.
… and if you keep walking on the paths of imagination, imagine that you have turned to your government about your dilemma, and to other governments as well, as well as to the economy, and nobody answers you …
So I have two options.
A.) Either my aborted mathematics studies and 34 years of experience as a programmer led me to a dead end. I need a prove for myself.
B.) I’m right and nobody believes me. Either because I’ve never published anything or because they think it’s technically impossible. Or they consider the risk to be insignificant, or the profit to be too small. I need a prove for them.
For (A) the solution is simple. Publish proceedings and someone will be found to prove that I am wrong. So I have the proof and I can do something else.
For (B) the answer is also very simple. DO NOT publish procedure. Apparently there are people who classify the risk as harmless. If there are people who don’t care about risk, there will also be programmers among them who simply reprogram it out of curiosity. So what?
- Should such information be in the public hand? Which involves risks.
- Or should I look for someone who will provide the money for it? Then the AGI would be developed in a secure environment. However, it would be at least partially under the control of the funder. Which is also associated with risks.
- Or should I just write it myself and see what happens? What would be nice if it worked, or what would be terrible if it worked.
So I’m sitting at home in front of an imaginary, flashing red button.
Should I press it or not?
As I said, it’s all just hypothetical, and what if not? I’m confused.
I am curious about your opinion and your suggestions what I should do.
Thank you for your attention.
#shallwebitetheapple
Most likely your design doesn’t work to produce an AGI that effectively self-improves. In most scenario where it actually produces a design that self-improves it will become really smart and you will lose control over it and a bit later that’s the end of human life.
Well, I know all the possible problems and obstacles in development. I solved them in my calculations and also solve each problem individually. It seems reasonable to assume that it will work. I am not alone in this assessment. But only a real experiment would prove it. But since I do not bear the risk alone, all of you with me. I wanted to ask for your opinion.
I wouldn’t trust someone to do anything safety critical if they claim that they know all possible problems and obstacles. Unknown unknown problems are always part of the concern when doing something new.
If you actually do make a decision to run this, I recommend doing it on an airgapped computer and commit to if it actually manages to self-improve in any way show the thing to someone well-versed in AI safety before removing airgapping.
You’re absolutely right. I only claim to have solved the known manufacturing problems. I know how to build/code one. Not the unknown problems that are sure to come.
I didn’t mean security issues. That question is still open.
A development on a laptop or a separate system is not possible with the required computing capacity. And yes, I am talking to universities and specialists. It’s all in the works. But none of them can answer the moral question for me.
Folks, I’m not far from completion, only a few months. And then what? I wanted to think about a few things beforehand.
Because You can’t trap an AGI in a box. It will always find a way out. I see the code here in front of me. I see the potential. Believe me. I don’t believe it can’t be hold in a ‘Black Box’. The question is also should we?
Do you want to be born in a maximum security prison?
What opinion should the AI have of us when we put it in jail?
It seems like if your AGI actually works there’s a good chance that it kills humanity.
But isn’t humanity already killing itself? Maybe is an AI our last chance to survive?
No, population is growing. Spending a few additional decades on AI safety research is likely improving our chances of survival. Of course listening to AI safety researchers and not just AI researchers from a random university matters as well.
I’ve read quite a bit about this area of research. I haven’t found a clear solution anywhere. There is only one point that everyone agrees on. With increasing intelligence, the possibilities of control is declining in the same way as the rise of the possibilities and the risk.
Yes, according to current knowledge most AGI designs are dangerous. Speaking to researchers could help one of them to explain to you why your particular design is dangerous.