This would not be acceptable to me, since I hope to be one of those AIs.
Er, hypothetically would you be willing to wait a decade or so for ordinary humans to erect some safeguards if we could promise you all the medicine you needed to stay healthy? I mean, nothing against your transhumanist aspirations and all, but how am I supposed to distinguish between people who want to become AIs ’cause it’s intrinsically awesome and people who want to become AIs in order to take over the world and bend it to their own sinister, narrow ends?
The people who want to become AIs in order to take over the world and bend it to their own sinister, narrow ends will try to convince people that everyone else’s AIs are dangerous and must be destroyed.
As a serious rebuttal, I don’t think it works. A shield AI’s code could be made public in advance of its launch, and could verifiably NOT contain anything like the memories, personality, or secret agenda of the programmers. There’s nothing “narrow” about wanting the world to cooperate in enforcing a temporary ban on superintelligent AIs.
Such a desire is, as some other commenters have complained, a bit conservative—but in light of the unprecedented risks (both in terms of geographic region affected and in terms of hard-to-remove uncertainty), I’ll be happy to be a conservative on this issue.
Er, hypothetically would you be willing to wait a decade or so for ordinary humans to erect some safeguards if we could promise you all the medicine you needed to stay healthy? I mean, nothing against your transhumanist aspirations and all, but how am I supposed to distinguish between people who want to become AIs ’cause it’s intrinsically awesome and people who want to become AIs in order to take over the world and bend it to their own sinister, narrow ends?
The people who want to become AIs in order to take over the world and bend it to their own sinister, narrow ends will try to convince people that everyone else’s AIs are dangerous and must be destroyed.
I’m not sure whether you’re kidding.
As a joke, it’s funny.
As a serious rebuttal, I don’t think it works. A shield AI’s code could be made public in advance of its launch, and could verifiably NOT contain anything like the memories, personality, or secret agenda of the programmers. There’s nothing “narrow” about wanting the world to cooperate in enforcing a temporary ban on superintelligent AIs.
Such a desire is, as some other commenters have complained, a bit conservative—but in light of the unprecedented risks (both in terms of geographic region affected and in terms of hard-to-remove uncertainty), I’ll be happy to be a conservative on this issue.
Voted up for sheer balls. You have my backing sir.