[vasco]

No because alignment makes no sense as a general concept. People are not "aligned" with each other. Humanity has no "goal" that we agree on. So no AI can be aligned with us. It can be at most aligned with the person prompting it in that moment (but most likely aligned with the AI owner).

To make it clear, maybe most people would say they agree with https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... but if you read just a few of the rights you see they are not universally respected and so we can conclude enough important people aren't "aligned" with them.

[skeledrew]

Opposite. All living things are "aligned" in their instinct for surviving. Those which aren't soon join the non-living, keeping the set - almost[0] - 100% aligned.

[0] Need to consider there're a few humans potentially kept alive against their will (if not having a will to survive is a will at all) with machines for whatever reason.

[lunar_mycroft]

Their own survival, not necessarily the survival of others (especially others of different species and/or conflicting other goals). A super intelligence having self preservation as a goal wouldn't help us keep it from harming us, if anything it would do the opposite.

[Applejinx]

The reason LLM-based 'intelligence' is doomed to be a human-scaled, selfish sub-intelligence is because the corpus of human writing is flooded with stuff like this. Everybody imagines God as a vindictive petty tyrant because that's what they'd be, and so that's their model.

Superintelligence would be different, most likely based on how societies or systems work, those being a class of intentionality that's usually not confined to a single person's intentions.

If you go by what the most productive societies do, the superintelligence certainly wouldn't harm us as we are a source for the genetic algorithm of ideas, and exterminating us would be a massive dose of entropy and failure.

[skeledrew]

It would only harm us if we took steps to harm it (or it thinks so). Or it's designed to do harm. Otherwise it's illogical to cause harm, and machines are literally built on logic.

[lunar_mycroft]

This is also incorrect. It's often not ethical to cause harm, and it can be counter productive in the right circumstances, but there's absolutely nothing that makes "causing harm to others" always be against an intelligence's goals. Humans, for example, routinely cause harm to other species. Sometimes this is deliberate, but other times it's because we're barely even aware we're doing so. We want a new road, so we start paving, and may not even realize there was an ant hill in the way (and if we did, we almost certainly wouldn't care).

[skeledrew]

Not in this context. Keep in mind that we're talking about machines here. It has been an explicit expectation even before computers were invented that intelligent machines would have to be made to abide by particular rules to prevent harm, summed up in Asimov's Three Laws[0]. I can't see any scenario where a properly programmed intelligence would go against its programming (despite the plots of movies like iRobot, The Matrix, etc). For an AI to cause harm, the allowance would have to be specifically programmed in (such as for military use).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

[mofeien]

- Its goal: X

- (Logic) => its subgoal: Not be turned off because that's a prerequisite to be able to do X

- (Logic) => Eliminate humans with their opaque and somewhat unpredictable minds to reduce chance of harm to it from 0.01% to 0.001%

[vasco]

Are you familiar with trolley problems? How do you resolve them by declaring "all beings want to live"? Life is not as simple as that.

[skeledrew]

No conflict. All beings wanting to live doesn't at all mean that all get to live, obviously. Nature itself evolved for living things to feed on each other.

[vasco]

The point is an agent will need to decide. And your rule is useless for hard decisions