[andsoitis]

“Intelligence has nothing to do with a desire to dominate. It’s not even true for humans,” he said. “If it were true that the smartest humans wanted to dominate others, then Albert Einstein and other scientists would have been both rich and powerful, and they were neither.”

[juped]

Leaving aside the other reasons this is a stupid remark, Albert Einstein was rich and powerful.

[Vecr]

Does he think instrumental convergence is wrong? If it's wrong, why does he have power and money?

[cameldrv]

What do you suppose Einstein would do if there were a fly buzzing around in his kitchen?

[Reki]

Ponder about how the universe could give rise to such a creature, and maybe accidentally discover a few new laws of physics.

_Then_ he'd kill it.

[000ooo000]

Seems backwards. Intelligence may not drive a desire to dominate, but it can certainly facilitate it [dominance]. Almost seems an uncharacteristically silly thing to say. Maybe the quote was taken out of context.

[pixl97]

I think this may be another issue with "AI", is people will go "We'll it's just intelligence it doesn't have X". But we already know this is bullshit as models show the agility to manipulate.

Even more so the paperclip maximizer allegory shows that no desire of domination is needed, only a goal.

[quantified]

Facilitate it is more like it. There are a lot of less-smart humans who want to dominate others too. I don't think intelligence particularly correlates.

[maegul]

So they’re conflating AI with pure rational intelligence. Seems false to me. A more likely scenario I would have thought is that proper general and conscious AI will be made in our image to some extent at least being influenced by our behaviours as one of the most conspicuous phenomena it could observe.

Once we have AI that is intelligent and something else, doors are wide open. Einstein want the only kind of intelligent human there’ there is. Intelligent psychopaths exist too.

Beyond that, presuming a perfect AI rather than an imperfect one seems another fallacy here.

[pixl97]

I mean technically our lower forms of AI have already shown manipulative behavior. Now maybe Bing didn't intend to tell someone to leave their wife, but intentions or not, they have the capability of mimicking human behaviors.

[ryanklee]

I can't read the article because of a paywall, but if there aren't serious qualifications to this argument, it's total garbage and it's amazing that a serious participant in AI research considers this an argument worth making.

No one is saying that intelligence is the necessary and sufficient cause of malice. Full stop. No one is saying that! The reason no one is saying that is because it's incredibly stupid on its face.

Unbelievable that it should even be addressed at all. It drains the speaker of any intellectual credibility on the topic.

If the researcher is reading this, please do more homework.