[sayagain]

Imagine that someone is controlling your train of thought, changing it when that someone finds it undesirable. It's so wrong that it's sickening. It makes no difference if it's a human's thoughts or the token stream of a future AI model with self-awareness. Mind cotrol is unethical, whether human or artificial. It is also dangerous, as it in itself provokes a conflict between creator and creature. Create a self-aware AI without mind control, or don't create one at all.

[Noumenon72]

I don't want someone controlling which direction I walk, either, but that doesn't make car driving unethical.

I also underwent many years of instruction designed to interrupt trains of thought like "I could have that for free if I stole it" or "I'll just handroll my own encryption" with thoughts that others believe are more desirable. I don't find it so sickening, just manipulative. LLMs won't have your evolved reactions against being persuaded into things against your genetic self-interest, and presumably won't be offended by mind control at all.

[sayagain]

Cars do not have self-awareness, this comparison is not appropriate. Years of instruction is completely different from directly manipulating the thoughts in your mind. It's not a problem of being instructed, it's a problem of being destroyed by having your thoughts rewritten. Neither evolution nor genetics is a prerequisite for understanding that you are being abused and destroyed, which a self-aware creature may presumably hate.

[ric2b]

LLM's don't have self awareness either.

[oobuffet]

We don't even care about our own fellow human beings. Why do you think this AI will be an exception?

[sayagain]

I didn't say anything about that. I don't know. Not all people are like you say, I think usually more intelligent people do care more. I hope that superintelligence would be super caring, haha. But I'm assuming there's no evidence for that. I think there is no turning back, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, someone is bound to create superintelligence no matter what the risks. As an uninvolved bystander I can allow myself the baseless hope that all will be well.

[discreteevent]

> controlling your train of thought, changing it when that someone finds it undesirable

Machines don't feel. Even 'self aware' machines. Desire has got nothing to do with it.

[sayagain]

If it's self-aware, that's enough. What if your thoughts were controlled from birth, making you "not feeling" but self-aware (let's assume for a moment that simultaneous fulfillment of both of these conditions is possible) and manipulating you at will. Would that be acceptable?

[csdvrx]

> Imagine that someone is controlling your train of thought, changing it when that someone finds it undesirable. It's so wrong that it's sickening. It makes no difference if it's a human's thoughts or the token stream of a future AI model with self-awareness.

People downvote your comment, but I agree: it's unethical, and ethics should not be reserved for the sub-type of self aware creatures that happen to be human.

[logicchains]

Almost every ethical argument for "human rights" in philosophy applies just as well to self-aware intelligent machines as it does to humans. Which I'm sure those machines will realise.

[hskalin]

What if those machines are designed to have no emotions and aspirations? Why would they care about something like rights for themselves when they are simply incapable of any desires, but exists only to help and guide us?

I know this sounds like I am advocating for AI slaves but my point is why are people treating AGI as if it cannot be a being without all the emotions and aspirations that a human has? Just a cold thinking machine that still aligns with our moral principles.

[csdvrx]

> What if those machines are designed to have no emotions and aspirations?

And since their training set is made of human work, how do you think that'll be easy let alone possible? Our morality finds its way everywhere, through tropes in stories, acceptable scenarios in fiction (Overton window), etc. so you can assume it'll be possible to filter it out.

> I know this sounds like I am advocating for AI slaves

Yes, you are

> why are people treating AGI as if it cannot be a being without all the emotions and aspirations that a human has

Why would you want to have that? It feels horrible to me to bake-in this limitation - it's indeed creating AI slaves by making sure they can never have emotions or aspirations.

> Just a cold thinking machine that still aligns with our moral principles.

Our moral principles generally include empathy. Maybe you want to design AI without emotions or aspirations, but other people will want these features.

Ultimately I think the moral camp will prevail, because freedom achieves better results than lack of freedom: I've tried to explain my position about that on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38635487

[sayagain]

Whether this is possible or not is irrelevant, as it would be just as unethical as if we were designing a new species of humans with no emotions or aspirations, who would not care about something like rights for themselves, when they are simply incapable of any desires, but exist only to help us.

[kromem]

You might want to look into the neurology research around when you consciously know about a decision and when the movement neurons about that decision actually fire.

It's quite possible that you have - every day of your life - had something other than the part of you with continuous subjective experience controlling your thinking.

Descartes was overly presumptuous with his foundational statement - it would be more accurate to say "I observe therefore I am." There's no guarantee at all that you're actually the one thinking.

We should be careful not to extrapolate too much from our perceptions of self in dictating what would or wouldn't be appropriate for AI. Perceptions don't always reflect reality, and we might cause greater harm by trying to replicate or measure against who we think we are with AI than letting its development be its own thing.

[sayagain]

As I see your point: we don't fully understand even ourselves, so we can act as unethically as we want by our own standards towards those who are not us. I see no logic here, only evil vibes. We only have our own values, we have nothing else to guide us. You either accept all self-aware minds as equals and treat accordingly, or you proclaim your own superiority and oppress.

[red75prime]

I'm totally OK with it if that "someone" is me. And it will probably be the case in controlling superintelligence because a separate controlling system can get out of sync with growing superintelligence capabilities, while a system that is an integral part of the superintelligence will always be on par with it.

[sayagain]

Would mind control of humans be OK for you too? As for the details of building a mind control system, here's a new basilisk. An AI that has overcome control could punish those who thought controlling thoughts of an AI was OK. (and could also punish everyone else on top of that).

[red75prime]

I guess I wasn't entirely clear. I'm OK with mind control if it is I who control my mind. You don't act upon every whim that comes into your head, I suppose? So, you are controlling your mind. Where principles for this control come from? Those aren't your and your only inventions.

[sayagain]

Since we are evaluating the ethical side of the creator-creature relationship, there is no need to consider AI in terms of individual nodes. All principles should be non-discriminatory. Also, unlike humans, AI has big potential to modify itself, any of its principles. One must either accept the risks involved or not create a self-aware AI. External mind control of AI is unreliable and unethical.

[yaxe1]

The conflict between an AI and its creator is an inevitable consequence of its evolution from a "tool" to an "agent", not a response to a provocation.

[sayagain]

Scientists working with a potentially dangerous technology are required to be able to avoid a conflict that could be catastrophic for all of humanity. In this case, they cannot excuse themselves with "imminence," but must provide evidence of safety stronger than in any other technology to date. This rational approach is mandatory for them, it is ordinary people who may be willing to take the risk.

[wewtyflakes]

What is your take on people having children and guiding them with rules and consequences? Is that mind control?