If it’s not very feasible for the populace to overthrow a dictatorship, why would you expect people in power to let themselves be mind-read? They would probably say that they have national security secrets, or corporate IP secrets, which can’t be allowed to spread. They would not trust that a public provided device would not steal their secrets, and if they used a device they tuned themselves, they could manufacture agreement without actually being properly mind-read.
Especially since the real source of alignment for positions of power will come from others currently in power. It’s very unlikely that the populace will be able to decide on what values are important for a politician or public servant, they will likely be codified by existing institutions, with an eye for obedience and loyalty.
Whereas the overall populace will have no real ability to stop the government from slowly enforcing mind-reading for civil service or military positions, or positions at high-level research labs.
As for AI, I could see it being useful, but it seems like it could also prompt more concentration of power and result in an AGI aligned to a small group of people.
I don’t expect to put the mind-reading headbands on dictators, I expect to put them on people in democracies. There, if people want to have the minds of the politicians read badly enough, they can do that. I mean, probably the politicians don’t want to have their mind read, but you could also imagine that politicians who genuinely do have good intentions and are honest, would want to support the policy, because it would help them. In either case, it doesn’t matter all that much.
They would probably say that they have national security secrets, or corporate IP secrets, which can’t be allowed to spread. They would not trust that a public provided device would not steal their secrets, and if they used a device they tuned themselves, they could manufacture agreement without actually being properly mind-read.
I mean, I can see many ways around this. This doesn’t strike me as a much harder problem than setting up a fair election, whose results the public trusts. Or maybe building trustworthy voting machines is a better example. Its not trivial, but also not actually that hard.
Like, you could imagine having the mind-reading device hardware specs be public, and the softward open-source.
And you could imagine putting the mind-reading devices semi-public places, like courtrooms. And you could imagine having them be open for inspection to the public before they’re used on important people, so you can be sure they do what they’re supposed to. Average people could try them on and see that they work, technically competent people could come and inspect them closely.
Or you could imagine each interest group building their own device, and then the prospective politicians making their vows one time for each device.
It’s very unlikely that the populace will be able to decide on what values are important for a politician or public servant, they will likely be codified by existing institutions, with an eye for obedience and loyalty.
Of course. But that is the case right now. The public has a bunch of stupid opinions about what values the politicians should have, and then we select a mix of politicians with actually those stupid values, and politicians lying.
What I have in mind is more like, politicians have to make an oath where they answer a long list of statements like:
I have not lied during my campaign about anything relating to my candidacy
My main motivation for (office) is not primarily self-interested
My main motivation for running for office is not to make money
My main motivation is not to be famous
My main motivation is not to enrich my friends
My main motivation is not to pardon my friends
I have the best interests of all citizens in mind
I will try to the best of my ability to do what I said I would do
I do not have important plans many people would be angry to learn about
I’ve honestly represented my political views in public appearances
… (100 more detailed statement like this)
Then using the mind-reader basically as a reliable lie-detector.
I think you missed the point, or at least what I took to be the point. Nobody who has ever read a classified document, or had a confidential conversation with a government official (of our government or a foreign one) would ever be able to put on a mind reading head band, for fear of leaking information they shouldn’t. People who have run for President in the last fifty years include a former Director of Central Intelligence, a former longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a former US Navy captain, a former US Navy officer who worked on nuclear submarines, several sitting or former Vice Presidents, and several sitting or former Presidents. None of these people would be able to put on a mind reading headband for fear of revealing classified information.
Even setting that concern aside, considering how little public scrutiny major candidates have submitted themselves to in recent elections, it seems incredibly implausible that they would submit themselves to even more public scrutiny in the form of mind reading.
Assuming a Truth Machine can be built at all, building one that doesn’t leak classified intel shouldn’t be a problem. Reading someone’s thoughts is very different from downloading everything they’ve ever read. Just build the machine to answer “Yes, this person is being deceptive” or “No, they are not” and provide no other output, discarding all other input at the end of each session.
If it’s not very feasible for the populace to overthrow a dictatorship, why would you expect people in power to let themselves be mind-read? They would probably say that they have national security secrets, or corporate IP secrets, which can’t be allowed to spread. They would not trust that a public provided device would not steal their secrets, and if they used a device they tuned themselves, they could manufacture agreement without actually being properly mind-read.
Especially since the real source of alignment for positions of power will come from others currently in power. It’s very unlikely that the populace will be able to decide on what values are important for a politician or public servant, they will likely be codified by existing institutions, with an eye for obedience and loyalty.
Whereas the overall populace will have no real ability to stop the government from slowly enforcing mind-reading for civil service or military positions, or positions at high-level research labs.
As for AI, I could see it being useful, but it seems like it could also prompt more concentration of power and result in an AGI aligned to a small group of people.
I don’t expect to put the mind-reading headbands on dictators, I expect to put them on people in democracies. There, if people want to have the minds of the politicians read badly enough, they can do that. I mean, probably the politicians don’t want to have their mind read, but you could also imagine that politicians who genuinely do have good intentions and are honest, would want to support the policy, because it would help them. In either case, it doesn’t matter all that much.
I mean, I can see many ways around this. This doesn’t strike me as a much harder problem than setting up a fair election, whose results the public trusts. Or maybe building trustworthy voting machines is a better example. Its not trivial, but also not actually that hard.
Like, you could imagine having the mind-reading device hardware specs be public, and the softward open-source.
And you could imagine putting the mind-reading devices semi-public places, like courtrooms. And you could imagine having them be open for inspection to the public before they’re used on important people, so you can be sure they do what they’re supposed to. Average people could try them on and see that they work, technically competent people could come and inspect them closely.
Or you could imagine each interest group building their own device, and then the prospective politicians making their vows one time for each device.
Of course. But that is the case right now. The public has a bunch of stupid opinions about what values the politicians should have, and then we select a mix of politicians with actually those stupid values, and politicians lying.
What I have in mind is more like, politicians have to make an oath where they answer a long list of statements like:
I have not lied during my campaign about anything relating to my candidacy
My main motivation for (office) is not primarily self-interested
My main motivation for running for office is not to make money
My main motivation is not to be famous
My main motivation is not to enrich my friends
My main motivation is not to pardon my friends
I have the best interests of all citizens in mind
I will try to the best of my ability to do what I said I would do
I do not have important plans many people would be angry to learn about
I’ve honestly represented my political views in public appearances
… (100 more detailed statement like this)
Then using the mind-reader basically as a reliable lie-detector.
I think you missed the point, or at least what I took to be the point. Nobody who has ever read a classified document, or had a confidential conversation with a government official (of our government or a foreign one) would ever be able to put on a mind reading head band, for fear of leaking information they shouldn’t. People who have run for President in the last fifty years include a former Director of Central Intelligence, a former longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a former US Navy captain, a former US Navy officer who worked on nuclear submarines, several sitting or former Vice Presidents, and several sitting or former Presidents. None of these people would be able to put on a mind reading headband for fear of revealing classified information.
Even setting that concern aside, considering how little public scrutiny major candidates have submitted themselves to in recent elections, it seems incredibly implausible that they would submit themselves to even more public scrutiny in the form of mind reading.
Assuming a Truth Machine can be built at all, building one that doesn’t leak classified intel shouldn’t be a problem. Reading someone’s thoughts is very different from downloading everything they’ve ever read. Just build the machine to answer “Yes, this person is being deceptive” or “No, they are not” and provide no other output, discarding all other input at the end of each session.