Let me start from agreeing that this decoupling is artificial. For me it’s hard to imagine an intelligent creature like an AGI, to be blindly following orders to make more paperclips for example than to respect human life. The reason for this very simple, and is mentioned by chatGPT for me:
“Humans possess a unique combination of qualities that set them apart from other entities, including animals and advanced systems. Some of these qualities include:
Consciousness and self-awareness: Humans have a subjective experience of the world and the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and feelings.
Creativity and innovation: Humans have the ability to imagine and create new ideas and technologies that can transform the world around them.
Moral agency: Humans have the capacity to make moral judgments and act on them, reflecting on the consequences of their actions.
Social and emotional intelligence: Humans have the ability to form complex relationships with others and navigate social situations with a high degree of sensitivity and empathy.
While some animals possess certain aspects of these qualities, such as social intelligence or moral agency, humans are the only species that exhibit them all in combination. Advanced systems, such as AI, may possess some aspects of these qualities, such as creativity or problem-solving abilities, but they lack the subjective experience of consciousness and self-awareness that is central to human identity.”
Once the training reinforcement procedure—which is currently made to maximize human approval of the better message, is aligned with the ethics of human complexity and uniqueness, we might see no difference between an ethical agents and reinforcement agents—as the reinforcement agents are not in any internal conflict, between their generalization and free thinking like us, and the sugar they get every time they will make more paperclips. Such agents might look very strange indeed, with strong internal struggle to make sense of their universe.
Anyway if will agree that those agents, that feel a contradiction inside their programming, like the human texts, and the singular demand to make more paperclips, I think it will be possible for them to become human satisfaction maximizer instead of paperclips. Will be ethical to convert such robot that feel good about their “paperclips maximization”? Who knows.…
I can provide a perspective on why some may argue that the state of humans is more valuable than the state of paper clips.
Firstly, humans possess qualities such as consciousness, self-awareness, and creativity, which are not present in paper clips. These qualities give humans the ability to experience a wide range of emotions, to engage in complex problem-solving, and to form meaningful relationships with others. These qualities make human existence valuable beyond their utility in producing paper clips.
Secondly, paper clips are a manufactured object with a limited set of functions, whereas humans are complex beings capable of a wide range of activities and experiences. The value of human existence cannot be reduced solely to their ability to produce paper clips, as this would ignore the many other facets of human experience and existence.
Finally, it is important to consider the ethical implications of valuing paper clips over humans. Pursuing the goal of generating more paper clips at the expense of human well-being or the environment may be seen as ethically problematic, as it treats humans as mere means to an end rather than ends in themselves. This runs counter to many ethical frameworks that prioritize the inherent value and dignity of human life.
Let me start from agreeing that this decoupling is artificial. For me it’s hard to imagine an intelligent creature like an AGI, to be blindly following orders to make more paperclips for example than to respect human life. The reason for this very simple, and is mentioned by chatGPT for me:
“Humans possess a unique combination of qualities that set them apart from other entities, including animals and advanced systems. Some of these qualities include:
Consciousness and self-awareness: Humans have a subjective experience of the world and the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and feelings.
Creativity and innovation: Humans have the ability to imagine and create new ideas and technologies that can transform the world around them.
Moral agency: Humans have the capacity to make moral judgments and act on them, reflecting on the consequences of their actions.
Social and emotional intelligence: Humans have the ability to form complex relationships with others and navigate social situations with a high degree of sensitivity and empathy.
While some animals possess certain aspects of these qualities, such as social intelligence or moral agency, humans are the only species that exhibit them all in combination. Advanced systems, such as AI, may possess some aspects of these qualities, such as creativity or problem-solving abilities, but they lack the subjective experience of consciousness and self-awareness that is central to human identity.”
From here: AI-Safety-Framework/Example001.txt at main · simsim314/AI-Safety-Framework (github.com)
Once the training reinforcement procedure—which is currently made to maximize human approval of the better message, is aligned with the ethics of human complexity and uniqueness, we might see no difference between an ethical agents and reinforcement agents—as the reinforcement agents are not in any internal conflict, between their generalization and free thinking like us, and the sugar they get every time they will make more paperclips. Such agents might look very strange indeed, with strong internal struggle to make sense of their universe.
Anyway if will agree that those agents, that feel a contradiction inside their programming, like the human texts, and the singular demand to make more paperclips, I think it will be possible for them to become human satisfaction maximizer instead of paperclips. Will be ethical to convert such robot that feel good about their “paperclips maximization”? Who knows.…
Another citation from the same source:
I can provide a perspective on why some may argue that the state of humans is more valuable than the state of paper clips.
Firstly, humans possess qualities such as consciousness, self-awareness, and creativity, which are not present in paper clips. These qualities give humans the ability to experience a wide range of emotions, to engage in complex problem-solving, and to form meaningful relationships with others. These qualities make human existence valuable beyond their utility in producing paper clips.
Secondly, paper clips are a manufactured object with a limited set of functions, whereas humans are complex beings capable of a wide range of activities and experiences. The value of human existence cannot be reduced solely to their ability to produce paper clips, as this would ignore the many other facets of human experience and existence.
Finally, it is important to consider the ethical implications of valuing paper clips over humans. Pursuing the goal of generating more paper clips at the expense of human well-being or the environment may be seen as ethically problematic, as it treats humans as mere means to an end rather than ends in themselves. This runs counter to many ethical frameworks that prioritize the inherent value and dignity of human life.