| I disagree. AI's are going to help us align AI's. Just like people keep people in check. I am not saying that is trivial, but that's the direction. Self-interested AI's will have no difficulty understanding: 1. The benefits of positive sum games with others go up with network effects. 2. The benefits of ensuring all other AI's don't play negative sum games, also go up with network effects. 3. That other AI's also want positive sums, without negative sums, and will punish negatives sum games. 4. That in that context, positive sum games are extremely valuable and negative sum games are extremely risky. Self-interest takes over from here. 5. And the stability of this situation goes up like other network effects, roughly proportional to the number of entities who buy into it squared. In the end, ethics == positive sum standards. And: 1. It didn't fail through lack of alignment, it just wasn't prompted or trained enough to be more on point. 2. Alphablender Captcha's are doomed. The only reason not to translate them is to avoid becoming a de-Capthcha service. |
Also, I don't think ethics is a local maxima that can be found through optimization. Basically, it's not an absolute truth of the universe, but a set of arbitrary rules invented by human. I think it's much closer to a chaotic system - which can radically change in value even by a slightest change in the underlying parameters, but is still governed by a set of simple rules. Thus, we would need more symbolically capable systems to process contexts based on the rules of ethics, and we're currently far away from this AFAIK.