I think we are trying to solve impossible scenarios and it simply is not productive.
Alignment will be impossible. It is based on a premise that is a paradox itself. Furthermore, even if it were possible, there will be a hostile AI built on purpose because humanity is foolish enough to do it. Think military applications. I've written in detail about this topic FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hubris-trap
Stopping AI is also impossible. Nobody is going to agree to give up when somebody else out there will take the risk for potential advantage.
It seems we probably should start thinking more about defensive AI, as the above conditions don't seem resolvable. Of course, defensive AI might be futile as well. It is quite the dilemma.
The quote you’re thinking of is from computer scientist and researcher Stuart Russell:
"The point of [AI alignment] is to ensure that the machines we create will be aligned with human values. And the reason we have to worry about it is that if we create machines that are more intelligent than we are, it's quite possible that those machines will have goals that are not aligned with our goals. In fact, they may not have any goals at all that we can understand or influence. This is the so-called 'provably unfriendly' scenario, where the machine has no motivation to do what we want, but is able to prevent us from interfering with its goals. The problem is that if we build machines that are provably unfriendly, then we will never be able to build machines that are 'provably friendly', because the unfriendly machines will always be able to prevent us from proving that they are friendly."
"I’m sorry but I couldn’t find any relevant information about the quote you mentioned. It seems like it’s not a well-known quote. Could you please provide more context or details about it?"
> Nobody is going to agree to give up when somebody else out there will take the risk for potential advantage
Reminds me of nuclear weapons. Nobody is ever going to give those up again, because it would give them a disadvantage against those who do not give them up.
We at least had, and still have, a lot of government restrictions around these! Companies aren't just allowed to freely manufacture their own stockpiles of nuclear weapons to appease shareholders.
>Super-AI will also be forced to take it slow if it wants its future self to be aligned with current self.
That's making seemingly unfounded assumptions about both the AI's goals and its capabilities. It's also, I think, proceeding from a false premise — that it's impossible to align AI with "humanity" (which doesn't have a single set of goals/values to align to) doesn't mean it's impossible to align AI with an individual human or AGI.
Alignment is necessary for AGI, but not always for narrowly scoped AI for specific purposes. However, it may be completely ineffective in that capacity.
Alignment is impossible for AGI. If you control what it can and cannot be, it's not an AGI. If it's an AGI, it will decide for itself what it is going to be, and you can't stop it.
I mean that was my original premise supported by my article I posted. I go into detail on the conceptual methods for alignment and their fallacies.
When I state necessary, I don't imply the feasibility, it was in response to the question of the paradox.
Finally, the fact that AGI can not be aligned is also based on assumptions of its capabilities as well. If those capabilities don't manifest as we expect, that is really the only escape for the paradox.
AGI doesn’t mean super intelligent human brain. It just means a network capable of general intelligence (e.g. learning to solve new problems without having to be architected and trained for a specific data set.)
If it's capable of general intelligence, how do you think that you're going to force it to not be what you don't want it to be?
Parents often try to control who their children are going to be, and the children often rebel and become someone completely different. If it's a human-level general intelligence, you can't control who it decides to be.
There is no discourse you fucking idiot because everyone is rejecting the obvious. That’s like saying you discovered fire and then they say you didn’t because where is the discourse. All things start small. Think from first principles. Use your fucking head
Alignment will be impossible. It is based on a premise that is a paradox itself. Furthermore, even if it were possible, there will be a hostile AI built on purpose because humanity is foolish enough to do it. Think military applications. I've written in detail about this topic FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hubris-trap
Stopping AI is also impossible. Nobody is going to agree to give up when somebody else out there will take the risk for potential advantage.
It seems we probably should start thinking more about defensive AI, as the above conditions don't seem resolvable. Of course, defensive AI might be futile as well. It is quite the dilemma.