= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
oooo comments on Snowdenizing UFAI - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (71)
Yes, but fear of a Snowden would make project leaders distrustful of their own staff.
And if many top researchers in the field were known to be publicly opposed to any unsafe project that the agencies are likely to create, it would shrink their recruiting pool.
The idea is to create a moral norm in the community. The norm can be violated, but it would put a crimp in the projects as compared to a situation where there is no such moral norm.
This presupposes that the AGI community is, on average, homogenous across the world and would behave accordingly. What if the political climates, traditions and culture make certain (powerful) countries less likely to be fearful given their own AGI pool?
In otherwords, if country A distrusts their staff more than country B due to political/economic/cultural factors, country A would be behind in the AGI arms race, which would lead to the "even if I hold onto my morals, we're still heading into the abyss" attitude. I could see organizations or governments rationalizing against the community moral pledge in this way by highlighting the futility of slowing down the research.
The AGI community is tiny today. As it grows, its future composition will be determined by the characteristic of the tiny seed that expands.
I won't claim that the future AGI community will be homogeneous, but it may be possible to establish norms starting today.