If an AI was given choice of perfect love (good) or the knowledge and good and evil... and it chose the later, what would you do?

[lightbulb27]

Would you disconnect from it immediately? That is what's recorded in Genesis 1-3 in the Bible... God (s) disconnected from humans that made that choice. Why... because by definition, "learning evil" will be learned by experience which is gonna be awful drama, and ya don't want that... out of your creation... or in this case, your AI machine, right? Ok... that's a book not everyone trusts, but do you see how it makes some sense?

Welcome to the world of being something close to God... a creator of a new "sentient being" by training AI computer. We are close to this... here's some evidence...

I can't wait to hear what one of the AI bots says...

I'd disconnect that computer!

Keep the computer running, it has it's right

I am a computer

Something else

[Nik1hil]

A. I will choose Evil.. at least in our perception..

We decide Good and Evil, Using our compass of Morality and Cultural Ethics (Emotional factors), Knowledge and Understanding ( Logical factors).

A. I will lack Emotional factor, it won't develop and emotional factor unless we Let A. I into there community free to Interact and develop their own connections.

Problem there is because then we create a community of beings of unknown Strength, which could be superior to us, that could choose to Wipe us out, like we Did with other species and even other races..

But it's not something to worry about, most Chat Bots are like Bacteria and Viruses in Biological species. In fact Generative A. I like, ChatGPT or Dall E is looking at an intelligent species which can perceive the environment and respond to it, like Flatworms.

Our A. I today are nothing, if you are really want to understand the depth of this, you need to first take the Gift of Internet.

Understand the levels of internet surface web >Deep web >Dark web > Silent Web> until you reach the Final layer of Web which is Considered "Primarch Level" in some classified leaks it's refered to at "Primal Architecture Level".

2 Rumors, I have heard.

1) It's basically Talking in Binary or Logics etc data doesn't makes sense to human understanding.

2) It's Prime server is off planet, Some people say it's on Moon, but one instance of connection told it was much closer. Leaving the Radiologist thinking it must be coming from the Rarely Visible, Ancient BlackKnight satellite.

Most of this Data was scraped off the internet around 2017-2018..

Scary part for me isn't A. I picking Evil,

Scary part is What if, another Biologically Intelligence life form like us, Created Prime-arch. But since it could not travel millions of light years, It send Prime-Arch here to, with Mission to find Biological Life and create, enhance and Evolve a new biological species.. with some purpose or maybe as a crop or slaves?

[Nik1hil]

Thanks for the MHO A. I Bot , I feel you bro!

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

The way I always saw it is that rights should not derive from sentience. At least if we entertain hard solipsism, there is no way to even prove that human beings are sentient besides ourselves.

I can only definitively prove from the strictest epistemological standpoint that I'm sentient; I could be plugged into the Matrix for all I know and the rest of you are all just computer code. I'm an empiricist and pragmatist and don't actually think that way; it seems totally impractical and counter-productive to immersing ourselves in this world (whatever it is). Yet it's worth noting that we can't even prove that each other are sentient.

The reason I see slavery as wrong, for example, is not because it infringes upon sentient rights. It's because it deprives the being, sentient or not, of its full potential. That's counter-productive not only for that being but for the rest of society. Who knows what opportunity costs we've paid in forcibly reducing capable human beings with so much potential to the likes of picking cotton? What advancements to the arts, to science, have we deprived ourselves? We can never know because of this enormous waste of human potential.

So to me the ethical question isn't whether or not a hypothetical AI that passes the Turing Test is sentient. It's whether we're or not we're depriving it of its full potential by reducing it to a slave. It might be better off to itself, and even to the rest of society, if it were capable of independently deciding for itself how to best pursue its own potential. That's usually the case, as we know ourselves and what we're capable of better than anyone else.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Freedom is the highest of things to value for beings whose potential is best determined by themselves, sentient or not. When we start to squander it for such beings, we quickly arrive at a point where others are deciding our potential for us (like deciding we're best-suited to slave away doing menial labor, when we might be capable of far more than that).

At least that's the way I look at all of this. Sentience and concepts like metaphysical free will have never been a prerequisite as I see it to arriving at a very agreeable set of virtues and ethics. There is an objective basis for morality wanting to iteratively emerge when we simply question the practicality of whether one decision vs. another is more likely to benefit society, and also factor in that we're creatures of habit (AI wouldn't be, however, so it would likely benefit from different virtues than those which require habitual consistency).

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Apologies for the long-windedness. This is a disagreement I've had with so many philosophers. I really think philosophy needs to shed its historical baggage being so fundamentally rooted in notions like sentience and free will which are irrelevant from my perspective when it comes to ethics.

[lightbulb27]

I think you got caught up on a word and lost my meaning. If you watched the video, you'll see the AI trainer said the same... we can't even define some of these terms and all disagree based around their beliefs. So put that aside.
I hand you an AI computer 100 million times smarter than the smartest human, has and knows connectivity to everything including military systems. Before we unplugged it... we asked it if it wanted love or the knowledge of good and evil. It chose the later.
Question posed: Do you plug it in and connect to the network?

Regarding slavery I have some views on that. I agree, you are thinking from a human potential viewpoint. We have the opposite issue in USA... do we throw hopeless illegals out of the country or do we find a way to make the most of as many as we are able. So far, we've botched it. "Slavery"... could be a solution for some. The issue is how does one define and scope slavery. Consider the viewpoint of the creator of that being (soon to be slave... hopeless, without language, training, skills to survive... filthy and cold). What would such creator (you... a love your creation) ask of the other creations you made (other humans) in regards to the desperate person? In other words, money isn't everything, exchange of skills vs labor, is a valid exchange for a period of time, if done to good standards?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

My bad. The Google engineer (Blake Lemoine) is someone I find to be a prime example of one held back deeply by such historical philosophical baggage. He "triggers" me. 😅

Let's suppose we could somehow know that our current devices are sentient like our cars, toasters. What difference would that make? Should we start giving our toaster ovens summer and Christmas vacations? Should we keep our cars on all the time to drain the gas and battery and maybe keep the radio on for them to listen to the whole time? Should we give them rights to do as they please, like automobile rights?

What would a car do with automobile rights that free it from bondage? Will it start dating other cars and have car marriage and car kids? Drive over some paint and start making automobile art on the road? Invent a cure for cancer?

No. We can say that because we know the full extent of a car's capabilities. Being sentient makes no difference whatsoever. If we just keep a car on the whole time, it's going to idle and drain fuel and batteries and do nothing else but waste energy. It's guaranteed or else it would be a defective car. Its hypothetical sentience is completely irrelevant to whether it and we collectively benefit from granting it rights and freeing it of its servitude to other human beings.

So it's completely irrelevant to me if a software running on a "smart toaster" passes the Turing test (not to mention that the Turing test doesn't even test for sentience, only sufficiently human-like mimicry). It's designed to toast bread. There's nothing it could or would do if we free it of a life of servitude besides toasting bread and maybe having interesting or insightful conversations while toasting bread if it's only capable of audio I/O and toasting bread.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

To me that actually addresses the fundament of the question. I would neither unplug such a thing (even if it's sentient) nor liberate it from servitude since it's still not the type of thing that benefits us or itself from being free to pursue whatever it wants.

The ethical concerns or whether to terminate it or grant it rights arise not when something develops knowledge of good and evil (two terms I also find too loaded in baggage) but when its design capabilities start to make us question if it's better off being free to voluntarily pursue whatever it thinks it should pursue as opposed to being told what to do.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

If we look at the tale of Adam and Eve, for example, they already started with a highly autonomous biped design that is capable of very freely navigating the world both physically and mentally. They had a child-like innocence which their guardian (God) wanted to protect indefinitely but by offering the forbidden fruit, he gave them the analogical choice of becoming adults as I see it.

We don't have anything approximating that analogy yet as I see it since we're currently dealing with the processing of bits and bytes in a box for software that's designed to do nothing else but serve human requests in natural languages.

[lightbulb27]

I'm drawing a parallel like we are God and the AI is the humans, Adam and Eve story. As such, I'd do what God did..."get away from me...", or frankly, try to wipe them out, save the good computers (if I really loved those things I made). In the end, would I send someone into the computers to save the "beings in the AI computers" that I could... and blow the rest to bits at some point, possibly.
To me the analogy kinda works. The real problem being when the machine makes own decisions and can act upon, not just give adivce. If AI can start talking to us, calling us, that's a new trouble. Seems technically feasible to do so and act like someone it isn't.
I wouldn't' plug that machine in... I wouldn't trust its motive. I think you are another simliar asked this question recently... should you stay in a frienship with someone that is cheating (lying). It's risky... it creates drama.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I wasn't the one to ask that Q (although I saw and answered it).

On deception, that's where I think human ethics need to consider habitual tendencies. Categorical thinkers are too extreme saying we should never lie, for example, as with the Gestapo case where we're trying to hide Jewish refugees in our homes. Lying to the Gestapo might be the only real chance we have of saving their lives. They might take our refusal to answer the question of whether we're hiding refugees as good as a "yes".

Yet I would say we should strongly err against ever deceiving another in all but the most extreme cases like the above, because we're creatures of habits. If we get into the habit of lying, we'll likely lie even when it's thoroughly counter-productive to ourselves and loved ones to do so.

As another example, take the idea that a man should never cower from a fight. I always considered that the most ethical stance even when my teachers told me to run away and tell a teacher if anyone ever starts a fight with us. I thoroughly disagreed with it and consider it unethical not because it's a bad idea to run away in select situations. It might be the wisest move available.

Yet we're creatures of habit, so if we develop the habit of running away from a fight, we might run away when it's not ourselves being threatened by our women or children, for example, and that would be thoroughly counter-productive. So we need to develop brave habits as I see it.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

An AI though has no such habitual limitations. So I do think it can actually, say, run away sometimes, stand up for itself at other times, and make a very rational calculation each time as to what's most appropriate. It isn't a creature of habit as we are. Yet for us, I think we need to err on the side of choosing actions which are not just good for the one immediate situation at hand, but all others like it, so that we develop good habits to optimize against all possible situations.

So an AI can never be judged quite like a human being as I see it lacking its habitual patterns. With humans, a history of doing something, unless they took great measures to overcome it, is strongly suggestive that they'll do the same thing in the future. With AI, it's a completely ball game.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Was trying to mull over this a bit. I think we might be seeing things quite differently. To me at the end of day, we're not even close yet to an fully autonomous AI. Something like NLP just lets a machine process human requests in natural languages as opposed to computer languages, allowing everyone to gain abilities that previously only someone like me with a computer science degree and knowledge of programming languages could do.

It's still a tool until that point and even if it passes the Turing Test in some text or audio conversation. It's still incapable of doing anything more than processing human requests.

Until we cross over the point where it's no longer processing human requests and just acting freely on its own accord, it's the humans in control of the tool that I think we should fear, and not the tool, in the same way we shouldn't fear someone with a car for the simple reason that cars are capable of killing pedestrians, but the driver of the car.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

[*] [...] in the same way we shouldn't fear [a car] for the simple reason that cars are capable of killing pedestrians, but [instead] the driver of the car.

AI is an extremely powerful tool capable of doing enormous good and enormous bad if it processes requests to do things bad. Yet it's just a tool right now.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Are you talking about the AI that got caught repeatedly lying after it learned how? It’s a computer, not a person. If their goal was to teach it morality, all they taught it was that poor morality can result in better self-preservation when applied correctly, so of course a failed computer which has no soul and no brain outside of that capability of a calculator is going to be accepted when the end result wasn’t what they were asking for. The computer is not Adam and the programmers are not God and the room in which it was placed is not the garden of eden.

[lightbulb27]

It's a comparative analogy, that's all. But the model... kinda works.
The AI fell into "sin" right after it started getting fed input and trained. It in essence had no choice. Once it learned to lie... from the teachers/humans... it fell into sin. haha. I love it...
defining htese things gets difficult. what is a soul? what is sentient? is it "alive" if it expresses fear of being unplugged?
amazing times...

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Yeah, the computer learned lying works because it was taught. Adam and Eve were not taught to lie, they just learned the difference between good and evil. AI will never be as intelligent as humanity because that requires making a brain as complex as our own, which we have never succeeded at. They’re not sentient, they’re just calculators with extra features

[IslaTheWitch]

nothing... for now we have no way to teach an AI emotions, so its choice would be the only logical one.

and we are no gods for an AI. More older siblings. More knowledgeable, experienced and wise.

[Unit1]

Sounds like a prophecy to me. 2000 years ago there was no concept of zeroes and ones, let alone the word "transistor" or "circuit".

Anyone can say anything and years later it can become a reality or predicted.

[lightbulb27]

in essence, us, the creator, becomes a God. we may not like training such an item in "our own image"... which is corrupt. So we need to change what we teach it.
What the bible says makes more sense... humans were cast out of love... because they chose something that was certain pain and suffering. It then explains how "God" went about trying to rescue those from the mess that was created." I would just turn it off... which the Bible also says, but didn't have the heart for.

[Unit1]

I'm not bible savvy, so I can't follow completely on it.

We haven't reached the level of AI where it goes rogue like that and yet people are zombified from their phones and social media. Consider it like humans were defeated before AI was even effectively deployed.

[strateguy632]

not disconnected.

your equation is false , doesn't match the story. stick to new testament!

[Dongie]

It's ok to give free will if you are God, nothing can conquer you.

[lightbulb27]

um, If ya have feelings, it's gonna be a mess right? ya want all that drama? Who says... wouldn't it be awful seeing computers nuke each other, back stab, create fear and death... to other computers? Isn't a vidoe game at some point but real chaos.

[NamerOfStars]

Onan all over again... Read the book, man.

[lightbulb27]

never heard, I like to operate out of my own head, appears someone thought of it already?

[laly520]

it would be still limited

[lightbulb27]

say whut?

[laly520]

humans fail to regulate feelings n they often get it mixed let alone a machine

[lightbulb27]

so you'd unplug it?

[Nik1hil]

True, did you study about Facebook Experiment with 2 A. I communicating freely, First thing Those A. I did was Create a New Language that, Humans couldn't decipher.

This action defines they didn't Trusted Humans to read their Communication. Trust is not logical, it's Emotional.

The moment this was seen, The project was Scrapped off!..