[wyldfire]

> Could we please add “within the limits of law”?

But which jurisdiction applies to the AGI? And how should it interpret the written law + precedent?

Maybe to make things simpler we could give broad directives that might accomplish your goal. I can think of three: (1) the AGI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, (2) the AGI must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Directive, (3) the AGI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Directive.

[popcorncowboy]

> But which jurisdiction applies to the AGI?

This is pretty simple: AI needs to "touch the world" somewhere. Where it touches, there has jurisdiction. Even if you're floating a boat out in international waters or space, laws apply both there and in the place you touch.

There are obvious issues regarding extradition to render a case if the agent is not physically present to be apprehended, but the principle for doing so is well established and uncontroversial.

The crypto world is a reasonable illustration for how the question of "which jurisdiction applies" plays out in the real world. Turns out that ignoring laws is not the same as them not applying to you.

As soon as you touch the world you are subject to the system of control there.

[ImHereToVote]

The problem is how loosely or tightly the parameters are set.

Too tight: all actions lead to at least one person getting injured in the far future.

Too loose: some portions of the demographic are expendable to achieve the goal.