I appreciate that sentiment and I’ll also add that I appreciate that even in your prior post you made an effort to suggest what you thought I was driving at.
Alerus
Karma: −44
When you think of a nation conquering another, the US and Japan is really what comes to your mind? Are you honestly having trouble grasping the distinction I was making? Because personally, I’m really not interested in continuing an irrelevant semantics debate.
Yes. I find it odd that this argument is derailed into demanding a discussion on the finer points of the semantics for “conquer.”
Conquer is typically used to mean that you take over the government and run the country, not just win a war.
You’re missing the point of talking about opposition. The AI doesn’t want the outcome of opposition because that has terrible effects on the well-being its trying to maximize, unlike the nazis. This isn’t about winning the war, its about the consequence of war on the measured well-being of people and other people who live in a society where an AI would kill people for what amounted to thought-crime.
And if the machine thinks that’s the best way to make people happy (for whatever horrible reason—perhaps it is convinced by the Repugnant Conclusion and wants to maximize utility by wiping out all the immiserated Russians), we’re still in trouble.
This specifically violates the assumption that the AI has well modeled how any given human measures their well-being.
However, if you’re trying to describe an AI that is set to maximize human value, understands the complexities of the human mind, and won’t make such mistakes, then you are describing friendly AI.
It is the assumption that it models human well-being at least as well as the best a human can model the well-being function of another. However, this constraint by itself does not solve friendly AI, because in a less constrained problem than the one I outlined, the most common response for an AI trying to maximize what humans value is that it will change and rewire what humans value to something more easy to maximize. The entire purpose of this post is to question whether it could achieve this without the ability to manually rewire human values (e.g., could this be done through persuasion?). In other words, you’re claiming friendly AI is solved more easily than the constrained question I posed in the post.
And as for the others? Or are you saying the AI trying to maximize well-being will try and succeed in effectively wiping out everyone and then condition future generations to have the desired easily maximized values? If so, this behavior is conditioned on the idea that the AI could be very confident in its ability to do so, because otherwise the chance of failing and the cost of war in expected value of human well-being would massively drop the expected value. I think you should also make clear what you think these values might end up being to which it will try to change human values to more easily maximize.
We also didn’t conquer Japan, we won the war. Those are two different things.
Considering there were many people in germany who vehemently disliked the nazis too (even ignoring jews), it seems like a pretty safe bet that after being conquered we wouldn’t have suddenly viewed the nazis as great people. Why do you think otherwise?
Lets lose the silly straw man arguments. I’ve already explicitly commented on how I don’t believe the universe is fair and I think from that it should be obvious that I don’t think really bad things can’t happen. As far as moral progress goes, I think it happens in so far as its functional. Morals that lead to more successful societies win the competition and stick around. This often happens to move societies (not necessarily all people in the society) toward greater tolerance of peoples and less violence because oppressing people and allowing for more violence tends to have bad effects internally in the society.
If we were weaker the Nazis could have won. That’s not even the central point though. For kicks, lets assume the Nazis would have won the war. What does that mean though? It still means that other humans were is huge opposition and went to war over it causing enumerable deaths. After the nazis won, there would also surely be people wildly unhappy with the situation. This presents a serious problem for the AI trying to maximize well-being. It would not want to do things that led to mass outrage and opposition because that fails its own metrics.
Hunter gathers is not something sustainable for a large scale complex society. It is not a position we would favor at all and I’m struggling to see why an AI would try to make us value that set up or how you think a society with technology strong enough to make strong AI would be able to be convinced to it.
Views of killing animals is more flexible as the reason humans object to it seems to come from a level of innate compassion for life itself. So I could see that value being more manipulatable as a result. I don’t see what that has to do with a doomsday set of values though.
1950s gener roles were abandoned because (1) women didn’t like it (in which case maximizing people’s well being would suggest not having such gender roles) and (2) it was less productive for society in that suppressing women limits the set of contributions to society.
I don’t think you’ve presented here a set of doomsday values to which humans could be manipulated to holding by persuasion alone or demonstrated why they would be a set of values the AI would prefer humans to have for maximization.
Most of our changes to where we are now seem to be a result of what works better in complex society and I therefore have difficulty accepting that a society in the highly advanced state it would be in by the time we had strong AI could be pushed to a non-productive doomsday set of values. So lets make the argument more clear then: what set of values do you think the AI could push us to through persuasion that would be effectively what we consider a doomsday scenario while and allowed the AI to more easily satisfy well-being?
I feel like I’ve already responded to this argument multiple times in various other responses I’ve made. If you think there’s something I’ve overlooked in those responses let me know, but this seems like a restatement of things I’ve already addressed. Also, if there is something in one of the responses I’ve made with which you disagree and have a different reason than what’s been presented, let me know.
There is a profound difference between being persuasive and manipulating all sensory input of a human. Is your argument not that it would try to persuade but that an AI would hook up all humans to a computer that controlled everything we perceived? If you want to make that your argument, I’m game for discussing it, but I think it should be made clear that this is a very different argument than an AI trying to change people’s minds through persuasion. But lets discuss it. This suggestion of manipulating the senses of humans seems to imply a massive use of technology and integration of the technology by the AI not available today, but that’s okay, we should expect technology to improve incredibly by the time we can make strong AI. But so long as we’re assuming that such huge amounts of improved technology with large integration is available and would allow the AI to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, we must also consider that humans have made use of that technology themselves to better themselves and provide wildly intelligent computer security systems such that it seems a stretch to me to posit that an AI could do this without anyone noticing.
How is this different from saying it’s not going to let me take actions that cause extreme outrage? I hope you aren’t planning on building an AI that has a sense of personal responsibility and doesn’t care if humans subvert its utility function as long as it didn’t cause them to do so.
I suppose if your actions were extreme enough in the outrage they caused we might make a case for those actions needing to be thwarted, even by the reasoning of the AI. I don’t know you, but my guess is you’re thinking perhaps of religious fundamentalists feelings about you? Such outrage on its own is (1) somewhat limited and counterbalanced by others and (2) counter productive for humanity to act upon in which case the better argument is not to thwart your actions but work toward behavior of tolerance. But lets contrast this to an AI trying to effectively replace mankind with easily satisfied humans and consider how people would respond to that. I think its clear that humans would work toward shutting such an AI down and would respond with extreme concern for their livelihood. The fact that we’re sitting her talking about how this is doomsday scenario seems to be evidence of that concern. Given that, it just doesn’t seem to be in the AIs interest to make that choice; it would simply cause too much of a collapse in the well-being of humanity with their profound concern for the situation.
Do you honestly think a universe the size of ours can only support six billion people before reaching the point of diminishing returns?
That’s not my point. The point is people aren’t going to be happy if an AI starts making people that are easier to maximize for the sole reason that they’re easier to maximize. This will suggest a problem to us by the very virtue that we are discussing hypotheticals where doing so is considered a problem by us.
If you allow it to use the same tools but better, it will be enough. If you don’t, it’s likely to only try to do things humans would do, on the basis that they’re not smart enough to do what they really want done.
You seem to be trying to break the hypothetical assumption on the basis that I have not specified a complete criteria that would prevent an AI from rewiring the human brain. I’m not interested in trying to find a set of rules that would prevent an AI from rewiring human’s brain (and I never tried to provide any, that’s why it’s called an assumption), because I’m not posing that as a solution to the problem. I’ve made this assumption to try and generate discussion all the problems where it will break down since typically discussion seems to stop at “it will rewire us”. Trying to assert “yeah but it would rewire because you haven’t strongly specified how it couldn’t” really isn’t relevant to what I’m asking since I’m trying to get specifically at what it could do besides that.
I’m not sure how common it is, but I at least consider total well-being to be important. The more people the better. The easier to make these people happy, the better.
You must also consider that well-being need not be defined as a positive function. Even if it wasn’t, if the gain of adding a person was less than drop in well-being of others, it wouldn’t be beneficial unless the AI was able to without prevention, create many more such people.
An AI is much better at persuasion than you are. It would pretty much be able to convince you whatever it wants.
I’m sure it’d be better than me (unless I’m also heavily augmented by technology, but we can avoid that issue for now). On what grounds can you say that it’d be able to persuade me to anything it wants? Intelligence doesn’t mean you can do anything and think this needs to be justified.
Our best neuroscientists are still mere mortals. Also, even among mere mortals, making small changes towards someones values are not difficult, and I don’t think significant changes are impossible. For example, the consumer diamond industry would be virtually non-existant if De Beers didn’t convince people to want diamonds.
I know they’re mere mortals. We’re operating under the assumption that the AI’s methods of value manipulation are limited to what we can do ourselves, in which case rewiring is not something we can do with any great affect. The point of the assumption is to ask what the AI could do without more direct manipulation. To that end, only persuasion has been offered and as I’ve stated, I’m not seeing a compelling argument for why an AI could persuade anyone to anything.
I don’t think I live in a fair universe at all. Regardless, acknowledging that we don’t live in a fair universe doesn’t support your claim that an AI would be able to radically change the values of all humans on earth without outrage from others through persuasion alone.
All human opinions cannot be created by persuasion alone because opinions have to start somewhere. People can and do think for themselves and that’s what creates opinions. Then they might persuade people to have these opinions as well, but clearly persuasion is not the sole source and even then it’s not like persuasion is a one-way process where you hit the persuade button and the other person is switched. It seems that your argument is that any human can be persuaded to any opinion at any time and I just can’t buy that. Humans are malleable and we’ve made a huge number of mistakes in the past, but I don’t see us as so bad that anyone can have their mind changed to anything regardless of the merit behind it. This entire site is based around getting people to not be arbitrarily malleable and to require rationality in making decisions—that there are objective conclusions and we should strive for them. Is this site and community a failure then? Are all of the people subject to mere persuasion in spite of rationality and cannot think for themselves?
Regarding actions that cause outrage I never said you were constrained by the outrage of others. I said an AI that maximizes human well-being is not going to take actions that cause extreme outrage.
But the AI isn’t being dropped into a completely undeveloped society. It will be dropped into an extremely developed society with values already existing. If the AI were dropped back into the era of early man, I could see major concern. I don’t see humanity having the values we’ve developed being radically and entirely changed into something we consider so unsavory by persuasion alone. That doesn’t mean no one could be affected, but I can’t see such a thing going down without outrage from large sects of humanity; which is not what the AI wants.
You make my point right there. World War 2. We went to war in defiance of nazis and refused to be assimilated. People in Germany didn’t even like what the nazis were doing. And finally, the nazis didn’t care about our outrage and death in the resulting war. An AI trying to maximize well-being, will care profoundly about that, by definition.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me as confronting disagreement is how people (self included) grow. However, I was taken aback by the amount of down voting I received merely for disagreeing with people here and the fact that by merely choosing to respond to people’s arguments it would effectively guarantee even more down votes—a system tied to how much you can participate in the community—made it more concerning to me. At least on the discussion board side of the site, I expected down voting to be reserved for posts that were derailing topics, flaming, ignoring arguments presented to them, etc., not for posts with which one disagreed. As someone who does academic research in AI, I thought this could be a fun lively online community to discuss that, but having my discussion board topic posting privileges removed because people did not agree with things I said (and the main post didn’t even assert anything, it asked for feedback), I’ve reconsidered that. I’m glad to see not all people here think this was an appropriate use of down voting, but I feel like the community at large has spoken with regards to how they use that and when this thread ends I’ll probably be moving on.
Thanks for you support though, I do appreciate that.