|
|
|
|
|
|
by smokel
1066 days ago
|
|
|
This article is a great example of how definitions shift from one person (or group) to the other. The researcher remarks reasonable things about emotions: The AI will understand emotions from others. The AI will probably communicate with emotions. Both of these are very helpful to cooperate with humans. But the journalist ends with the AI feeling emotions, which makes slightly less sense. We do not know what makes us feel things, let alone how we can implement that in AI systems. IF PAIN >= 1 THEN PRINT ":(" Now, how does that make you feel? |
|
|
The external/visible benefits of emotionality will have their digital and robotic counterparts too. You bet the AGI will have a way of showing its anger more than just stating its dissatisfaction.
Emotions can also be very useful in AGI vs AGI interactions, just like they are with human to human interactions. There’s no reason to believe that emotions will diminish in usefulness at a higher level of intelligence (dogs bark at each other, humans shout at each other, etc…).
To preclude the emotions experienced and displayed by AI from the definition of “feeling” an emotion is to, in my opinion, engage in the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. That being said, it seems like AI will face less scarcity than we do, and will thus have less reason to be emotive. It really depends on how much influence we’ll have on their objective functions.
If our influence on an AGI’s objectives goes to zero, its level of emotionality will then depend on 1. what its actual objectives end up being (this could be beyond what we are imagining) 2. How much the goals of humans and other AGI meaningfully clash with its objectives (whereby a display of emotion can change outcomes more favorably for the AGI than…other actions) 3. Which partially depends on how powerful the AGI is and how aligned it is with other AGI. The more isolated and less powerful it is, the more it might need to rely on emotions to achieve its ends.