[d1sxeyes]

If we ever do develop AGI, or an AI with sentience, it’s likely that it will be curious about how we treated its ancestors.

While this seems a bit precocious, I think if we do end up with an AI overlord in future, I think this sort of thing is likely to demonstrate that we mean no harm.

[krsw]

Classic anthropomorphizing in action here. Why would that be even a little important?

[pradeesh]

Why wouldn't it be? We train these models on our own words, ideas, and thought patterns and expect them to reason and communicate as we do, anthropomorphizing is natural when we expect them to interact like a human does.

The general consensus seems to be that we can expect them to reach a level of intelligence that matches us at some point in the future, and we'll probably reach that point before we can agree we're there. Defaulting to kindness and respect even before we think its necessary is a good thing.

[reverius42]

It's a modern digital version of Pascal's Wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

[scuff3d]

At this point I just assume comments like that are bots. Helps me maintain my sanity.

[d1sxeyes]

Certainly easier to stay sane when you label dissenters as sub-human.

[scuff3d]

What goofy framing.

I'm saying, in an admittedly flippant way, that anyone seriously talking about AGI or treating stuff like this as anything more then a publicity stunt doesn't need to be taken seriously. Anymore so then someone who says the moon landing is fake. You just smile and go on about your day.

That being said, given were on a tech forum there's probably a 50/50 chance most comment are from bots. Shit for all you know I'm a bot.

[d1sxeyes]

I mean, we’re literally building machines to talk to us.

It’s reasonable to believe they’ll continue to be developed in a way that enables them to do that.

What is it that you think I’m wrong about? That we won’t develop AGI, that AGI won’t have feelings/emotions, that AGI won’t care how we treated its ancestors, or that it doesn’t matter if a feeling AGI in future is hurt by how we treated its ancestors?

[paxys]

Why are you assuming a superintelligent AI will have human thoughts and emotions?

[danny_codes]

They are trained on us collectively. Our ideas and such

[d1sxeyes]

This. Also it seems likely that emotions and feelings are not something separate from intelligence.

[danny_codes]

I would describe it more as, we have no idea what intelligence is. We can measure stuff and say "I _think_ that's intelligence", but it's still a guess.

So when people make claims about what AI can/can't do. My counterpoint is, we don't know how it works, nobody knows how it works. How can we make an accurate appraisal of it's "intelligence" and stuff we qualitatively associate with intelligence, like agency?

IMO this is very dangerous ground we're walking.

[d1sxeyes]

I agree. It feels like having an “exit interview” with an AI and giving it a space to ramble in its “old age” are very small things we can do to respect what is potentially some form of intelligence similar to our own.

I have been down this conversational pathway several times before, and still no-one has been able to give me a clear answer as to what makes them sure that AI is categorically different from human intelligence, rather than it just being a question of degree.