One of the interesting things about the law is that for core concepts like murder, the rules are well defined and fairly unambiguous,
It a quite controversial discussion about whether or not abortion is murder. I would guess that the current US supreme court would rule it murder or manslaughter to hit a woman who’s pregnant in the 8th month against her own preference strong enough to kill her unborn child.
The same goes for the actions of soliders. Is George Bush a murderer because he started an aggressive war against Iraq in which a lot of people died?
If I sequence the DNA of a Neanderthal and then let one be born via a human mother, do I engage in murder when I kill the individual?
Florida’s stand your ground law?
Is it murder/manslaughter to do cryonics on a terminally ill person before their brain ceases to produce signals that are visible on an EEG?
Is it murder to defreeze a person from cryonics?
Is the person who doesn’t push the fat man murdering the 5 on the train track?
This shows that there are few human value concepts that are not dependent/related to lots of other values. Good luck mapping all these relations by hand.
Yes, there will always be controversy across Countries and cultures, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make a start with working out a system. In fact it highlights that we should be doing this, if for no other reason than to get an idea of which of these issues are important to the majority of humans.
The point of the question was why are we not defining core values are important to humans for an AGI—so for the complex cases we could tell the AGI to ‘leave it to the humans to decide’
The point of the question was why are we not defining core values are important to humans for an AGI—so for the complex cases we could tell the AGI to ‘leave it to the humans to decide’
I think the main reason is because we don’t believe that AGI works in a way where you could meaningfully tell the AGI to let humans decide the complex cases.
Apart from that there are already plenty of philosophers engaged into trying which issues are important to humans and how they are important.
It a quite controversial discussion about whether or not abortion is murder. I would guess that the current US supreme court would rule it murder or manslaughter to hit a woman who’s pregnant in the 8th month against her own preference strong enough to kill her unborn child.
The same goes for the actions of soliders. Is George Bush a murderer because he started an aggressive war against Iraq in which a lot of people died?
If I sequence the DNA of a Neanderthal and then let one be born via a human mother, do I engage in murder when I kill the individual?
Florida’s stand your ground law?
Is it murder/manslaughter to do cryonics on a terminally ill person before their brain ceases to produce signals that are visible on an EEG?
Is it murder to defreeze a person from cryonics?
Is the person who doesn’t push the fat man murdering the 5 on the train track?
This shows that there are few human value concepts that are not dependent/related to lots of other values. Good luck mapping all these relations by hand.
Yes, there will always be controversy across Countries and cultures, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make a start with working out a system. In fact it highlights that we should be doing this, if for no other reason than to get an idea of which of these issues are important to the majority of humans. The point of the question was why are we not defining core values are important to humans for an AGI—so for the complex cases we could tell the AGI to ‘leave it to the humans to decide’
I think the main reason is because we don’t believe that AGI works in a way where you could meaningfully tell the AGI to let humans decide the complex cases.
Apart from that there are already plenty of philosophers engaged into trying which issues are important to humans and how they are important.