Who are you as a person, and why have you written this very long post?
Your rebuttal to “quantifying ‘ethics’ seems hard” seems to be “nuh-uh!”. I’d be even more forceful than your imagined interlocutor: quantifying ethics is the problem. You have assumed that we can do it without doing much in the way of breaking the process we’re supposed to use into mechanistic steps, and thereby assumed away the vast majority of the problem.
What steps you did propose, like “consult experts” and “draft very precise English-language sentences,” I don’t think will be helpful. First, figure out how the mechanism of updates about ethical considerations are supposed to work. Really break it down into what kind of things the AI represents internally, and then observes, and the rough algorithms by which it updates its internal representations. Then you can tell me about the priors of this process and about consulting the experts.
It should matter very little who I am, what should matter more is what I have. Why have I written it? I think AI Alignment is necessary and I think what have been proposed here is a good idea, at least in theory and if not wholly then at least partly, and I think it can help with AI alignment.
We could use a combination of knowledge graphs, neural nets, logic modules and clarification through discussion to let AIs make nuanced deductions about ethical situations as they evolve. And while quantifying ethics is challenging, we quantitatively model other complex concepts like emotions and intelligence so difficulty alone is not insurmountable. And it might be correct that truly capturing the essence of human morality may prove impossible, but approximation can still create better outcomes than no ethics at all. ANd also while understanding the internal mechanisms IS important, consulting experts and ensuring clear communication are valuable steps in the process of incorporating ethical priors. I do believe that it is equally important to gather insights from experts in the field of ethics as they can provide the necessary guidance in defining the ethical principles that we would undoubtedly need to be defined, at least in my view.
In conclusion, I do understand the importance if interpretability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all else should be kicked to the curb, to speak more colloquially, and that it might provide no actual value in creating more aligned AIs.
In any case, thank you for your feedback and criticism.
Who are you as a person, and why have you written this very long post?
Your rebuttal to “quantifying ‘ethics’ seems hard” seems to be “nuh-uh!”. I’d be even more forceful than your imagined interlocutor: quantifying ethics is the problem. You have assumed that we can do it without doing much in the way of breaking the process we’re supposed to use into mechanistic steps, and thereby assumed away the vast majority of the problem.
What steps you did propose, like “consult experts” and “draft very precise English-language sentences,” I don’t think will be helpful. First, figure out how the mechanism of updates about ethical considerations are supposed to work. Really break it down into what kind of things the AI represents internally, and then observes, and the rough algorithms by which it updates its internal representations. Then you can tell me about the priors of this process and about consulting the experts.
It should matter very little who I am, what should matter more is what I have.
Why have I written it? I think AI Alignment is necessary and I think what have been proposed here is a good idea, at least in theory and if not wholly then at least partly, and I think it can help with AI alignment.
We could use a combination of knowledge graphs, neural nets, logic modules and clarification through discussion to let AIs make nuanced deductions about ethical situations as they evolve. And while quantifying ethics is challenging, we quantitatively model other complex concepts like emotions and intelligence so difficulty alone is not insurmountable. And it might be correct that truly capturing the essence of human morality may prove impossible, but approximation can still create better outcomes than no ethics at all. ANd also while understanding the internal mechanisms IS important, consulting experts and ensuring clear communication are valuable steps in the process of incorporating ethical priors. I do believe that it is equally important to gather insights from experts in the field of ethics as they can provide the necessary guidance in defining the ethical principles that we would undoubtedly need to be defined, at least in my view.
In conclusion, I do understand the importance if interpretability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all else should be kicked to the curb, to speak more colloquially, and that it might provide no actual value in creating more aligned AIs.
In any case, thank you for your feedback and criticism.