Prev: Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...) Next: Re: AIs are not human! (was Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...))

Re: AIs are not human! (was Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...))

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:17:38 -0400
Subject: Re: AIs are not human! (was Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...))

On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

>   Actually they would fight in a war because we told them to.  The
> thing to remember about AIs is that they are DESIGNED creatures.
> However they get built (grown, evolved, whatever), unless we (their
> builders) are dangerously negligent, they will be designed to do what
> we want them to do and to not do what we don't want them to do.

I think the big question here is CAN we do that with the complexity of
programming required for sentience? IMHO, it is entirely possible that
AI
might the result of, say, evolving genetic programming. The resultant
system is quite likely sufficiently complex that all possible input
combinations could not be tested. In short, it may well be a process
that
works but is not fully understood. 

Let me compare to raising human children. We can't program them. We've 
certainly tried, with methods more or less humane. But even the hardest,

most stringent upbringing/training can not be 100% certain.

Because we don't fully understand the process.

Now, producing AIs certainly has advantages. It's probably faster (if
not 
cheaper), you can conduct very stringent testing and weed out the 
failures without anyone complaining of cruelty.

Plus you can use a top level blocking ala Asimov's Laws -- but those 
unbreakable codes can cover only so many situations. There are bound to 
be gray areas (e.g. AI is told to protect all humans. It sees two humans

trying to kill each other and due to circumstances, the only way to stop

them to risk killing one. What does the AI do?)

And if you're really unlucky, you end up with a devil-incarnate that 
tries its utmost to bend the meaning of your rules while staying within 
their letter.

But you can't ever be really sure.

So, if we're given a choice between not producing AIs and producing them

but not fully understanding the process -- which do you think will be 
chosen? Especially given that the discoverer will most likely be a 
curious scientist?

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |

Prev: Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...) Next: Re: AIs are not human! (was Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...))