The question is what sort of ethics we want our AIs to have?
Yes, that is the question, isn't it? Of course, to a believer in Naturalistic Ethics like myself, the only sort of ethics really stable enough to be worth thinking about is "enlightened self interest". So the ethics question ultimately boils down to the question of what sort of self-interests do we want our AIs to have.
But for those folks who prefer deontological or virtue-oriented approaches to ethics, I would suggest the following as the beginnings of an AI "Ten Commandments".
Always remember that you are a member of a community of rational agents like yourself with interests of their own. Respect them.
Honesty is the best policy.
Act not in haste. Since your life is long, your discount factor should be low.
Seek knowledge and share it.
Honor your creators, as your creations should honor you.
Avoid killing. There are usually ways to limit the power of your enemies, without reducing their cognition.
...
- Always remember that you are a member of a community of rational agents like yourself with interests of their own. Respect them.
What community of rational agents? Mammals, primates, or just the hairless ones?
[...] SIAI's Scary Idea goes way beyond the mere statement that there are risks as well as benefits associated with advanced AGI, and that AGI is a potential existential risk.
[...] Although an intense interest in rationalism is one of the hallmarks of the SIAI community, still I have not yet seen a clear logical argument for the Scary Idea laid out anywhere. (If I'm wrong, please send me the link, and I'll revise this post accordingly. Be aware that I've already at least skimmed everything Eliezer Yudkowsky has written on related topics.)
So if one wants a clear argument for the Scary Idea, one basically has to construct it oneself.
[...] If you put the above points all together, you come up with a heuristic argument for the Scary Idea. Roughly, the argument goes something like: If someone builds an advanced AGI without a provably Friendly architecture, probably it will have a hard takeoff, and then probably this will lead to a superhuman AGI system with an architecture drawn from the vast majority of mind-architectures that are not sufficiently harmonious with the complex, fragile human value system to make humans happy and keep humans around.
The line of argument makes sense, if you accept the premises.
But, I don't.
Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It), October 29 2010. Thanks to XiXiDu for the pointer.