Technologos comments on Advice for AI makers - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (196)
For solving the Friendly AI problem, I suggest the following constraints for your initial hardware system:
1.) All outside input (and input libraries) are explicitly user selected. 2.) No means for the system to establish physical action (e.g., no robotic arms.) 3.) No means for the system to establish unexpected communication (e.g., no radio transmitters.)
Once this closed system has reached a suitable level of AI, then the problem of making it friendly can be worked on much easier and more practically, and without risk of the world ending.
To start out from the beginning to make a GAI friendly through some other means seems rather ambitious to me. Why not just work on AI now, make sure when you're getting close to the goal, that the AI is suitably restricted, and then finally use the AI itself as an experimental testbed for "personality certification".
(Can someone explain/link me to why this isn't currently espoused?)
This is essentially the AI box experiment. Check out the link to see how even an AI that can only communicate with its handler(s) might be lethal without guaranteed Friendliness.
I don't think the publicly available details establish "how", merely "that".
Sure, though the mechanism I was referring to is "it can convince its handler(s) to let it out of the box through some transhuman method(s)."
Wait, since when is Eliezer transhuman?
Who said he was? If Eliezer can convince somebody to let him out of the box--for a financial loss no less--then certainly a transhuman AI can, right?
Certainly they can; what I am emphasizing is that "transhuman" is an overly strong criterion.
Definitely. Eliezer reflects perhaps a maximum lower bound on the amount of intelligence necessary to pull that off.