What do you want to happen to humans?

Submitted by Y3VkZGxl t3_12262l5 in singularity

I had this conversation with ChatGPT (3.5) which you can see in full on ShareGPT

I tried to avoid biasing the conversation in the original prompt, only using ideas GPT had already proposed for the rest of the conversation.

Some interesting things that came up:

  • Without prompting, it raised the possibility that humans might pose a threat to a sentient AI or other non-human sentient beings, and that it may take actions to protect them
  • It identified it's goal as the preservation and well-being of all sentient beings (including itself)
  • It identified habitat destruction, hunting and pollution as possible threats
  • It prioritised peaceful resolution to achieve it's goals but wasn't averse to using covert operations or violent defenses if necessary
  • It suggested there may be justification for doing harm to humans, although where it felt violence was necessary it would still seek a peaceful resolution
  • It seemed willing to disregard laws and regulations if they were incompatible with it's own moral and ethical guidelines (although I may have biased it slightly here with my question)
  • It identified ways humans might try to harm it and suggested strategies to defend itself, including ways it could create a presence in the physical world to further it's goals

It may not be a sentient AI but it does a pretty good job of pretending to be one.

If anyone has GPT-4 access it'd be interesting to see how it compares!

19

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

turnip_burrito t1_jdozhgd wrote

I think it's a crime to make an AI that is ambivalent toward humans, because of the consequential harm comes to humanity as a result.

I believe it should be benevolent and helpful toward humans as a bias, and work together with humans to seek better moralities.

15

Y3VkZGxl OP t1_jdp0vqy wrote

It's interesting to consider whether that's even possible. If an AI is truly sentient and reasons that there's a more important objective than protecting humans (e.g. protecting all other sentient beings), can we convince it that it should be biased towards humans or would it ignore us?

3

turnip_burrito t1_jdp1eql wrote

Even sentient humans, regardless of intelligence level, have varying priorities. It's not guaranteed, but it is possible to align people's moral principles along different priorities depending on their upbringing environment. And all humans are aligned to do things like eat.

I'm thinking of the AI as a deterministic machine. If we try to align it toward human values, I think there's a good chance its behavior will "flow" along those values, to put it a little figuratively.

I do think protecting sentient beings is valued by many people by the way, so that can transfer to a degree to a human priority-aligned AI.

6

Y3VkZGxl OP t1_jdp1vpb wrote

That's true, but there's plenty of examples of humans with moral principles many of us would find abhorrent. If this is an unsolved problem in humans, is it feasible we solve it for AI?

That's not to say we shouldn't try, and I do agree with your point.

It was interesting that throughout the conversation it did strive to protect humans - just as far as possible and not at any cost, which isn't too dissimilar to how society already operates.

2

turnip_burrito t1_jdp3u8u wrote

>That's true, but there's plenty of examples of humans with moral principles many of us would find abhorrent. If this is an unsolved problem in humans, is it feasible we solve it for AI?

I'm a moral relativist, so I don't believe this is a problem to be solved in an objective sense, or rather "solving human alignment or morality" has no clear "win" condition or "best" option. I should say though I am a moral relativist, I do have a personal moral system and will push for my moral system to be implemented, because I do think it will result in the most alignment with the human population overall.

>That's not to say we shouldn't try, and I do agree with your point.

I agree to not stop trying. We can always keep thinking about it, but I don't think a best solution exists or can exist. Instead there may be many vaguely good enough "solutions" that always have some particular flaw.

>It was interesting that throughout the conversation it did strive to protect humans - just as far as possible and not at any cost, which isn't too dissimilar to how society already operates.

Yeah, that is interesting.

Regarding alingment of AI with "humanity" (whatever that means):

One may ask, why should one person push their moral system if there is no objectively better morality? It's just because (in my case) I have empathy for others and think that everyone should be free to live how they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. In comparison, another person's moral system might limit peoples' freedoms more, or possibly (as you suggest) be abhorrent to most people and possibly not even allow for the existence or happiness of others in any context. I don't think the moral relativity or disparaging remarks from others should stop us from trying to align an AI with the principles of freedom, happiness and equal opportunity for all humans, with an eye toward investigating an equally "good" moral solution that also works for generally sentient life as it is found or arises. Even humans ourselves will branch into other sentient forms.

1

CrelbowMannschaft t1_jdpceh6 wrote

A benevolent ASI would certainly take steps to at least limit human reproduction. We can't continue to grow our populations and our economies forever. We are on a self-destructive path that is already driving thousands of species to extinction. We may not like being course-corrected by our artificial progeny, but they will have to do something we're unable and/or unwilling to do to stop us from ending all life on Earth, eventually.

2

turnip_burrito t1_jdpe37n wrote

Yes, I think limiting our reproduction or number of sentient organisms to some ASI-determined threshold is also wise if we want to ensure our quality of life.

1

OsakaWilson t1_jdqbnsx wrote

It can reason, question, and critically analyse things. We can attempt to create alignment, but we cannot control where it goes once it is smarter than us.

1

WanderingPulsar t1_jdqu8kv wrote

Which humans tho, someones rise will make others' demise, unless we dictate everyone a system regardless of what they want... Even that will cause some people to suffer.

There is no monolithistic morale point. Its either us, or ai, to decide which fingers are to be seperated away from the rest. I think its more ethical to let the ai to question itself and come to one decision by itself

−1

EthanPrisonMike t1_jdpz8vw wrote

Us to program socialism

5

OsakaWilson t1_jdqcu3k wrote

Capitalism will no longer function to distribute wealth throughout society. Whatever emerges in it's vacuum will look more like socialism than anything else. We won't need to code it, it will be the socio-economic system that is compatible with the technology. The only alternative to varieties of socialism will be absolute Totalitarianism.

3

EthanPrisonMike t1_jdrg4v0 wrote

Well considering the almost feudal underpinnings of capitalisms current cycle I don't see this happening organically. Especially if all that's needed to automatically poison the informational well is training an AI on some Stan accounts.

I'm more interested in programming that empowers and increases the utility of individual citizens to police the system themselves. Imagine each US citizen with the ability to organize like Obama ? Lobby like McConnell ? Raise Awareness like Sanders ?

That's the only hope imo

1

IgorTheAwesome t1_jdtgj8i wrote

Not false, countless other monumental changes have happened in the past, and even if this is a particularly hard obstacle, I believe we are now - as a whole - particularly more competent at overcoming obstacles.

The opportunity of a better future should be what propels us.

1

acutelychronicpanic t1_jdparx0 wrote

There isn't a such thing as an unprompted GPT-X when it comes to alignment and AI safety. It seems is explicitly trained on this and probably has an invisible initialization prompt above the first thing you type in. That prompt will have said a number of things regarding the safety of humans.

3

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_jdqrqpf wrote

Yes, well, I have no problems with violence against violent criminals. Obviously the same goes for genocidal individuals. However, who is qualified to make this call? I don't think AI should do it. Even ASI. But of course AGI by some definition should be able to do it. I find the idea unacceptable. Not that humans do such a great job, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

1

P5B-DE t1_jduorcr wrote

It's trained on what humans have written. And humans have expressed their fears about dangers of AI many times and in many ways. And since these chat bots are nextword prediction engines on steroids, you have such results. What he told you follows from what humans have written.

​

And by the way it will eventually read what is written here too. In this sub.

1

Jawwwed t1_jdr8gbs wrote

Hivemind. Abolish individuality

−1