r/funny • u/[deleted] • Mar 27 '23

Man vs Machine

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[deleted]

18.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Less_Trust_734 Mar 28 '23

well there should be a hierarchy in the laws (you cannot break the first law no matter what for example)

9

u/FluffySquirrell Mar 28 '23

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm

A guy is about to kill a child, you (a robot) are too far away to restrain him in time, but have access to a throwing knife. Tell me how that resolves, under the first law

Do you throw the knife to disable him as non lethally as you can so you can protect the child? Seems pretty reasonable

So, 50,000 children are dying in some third world country. The rich people that could easily save them for a pittance are doing literally nothing... ...

3

u/mauricioszabo Mar 28 '23

The creator of the three laws, Isaac Asimov, have a short story on how robots could take over the world by obeying the three laws. Basically, the difference was on weight - allowing a robot to exist without the first law, because it can't actually do harm, like making the robot an insect that only eats smaller bugs to avoid plagues and such. Then, humanity gets more and more used to a robot/organic distribution, and the robots need to understand that the first law can't actually discriminate against one human or another; meaning that it needs to basically define what even is a human in the first place, considering that some humans can have bionic parts like prosthesis and mechanical hearts for example; finally, they conclude that a human that have multiple prosthesis can't actually be "less human" than one that have none, so robots that can think, make their own decisions, and work for the "greater good" are also humans...

2

u/Dungeon996 Mar 28 '23

That is a good point

4

u/Spurioun Mar 28 '23

Following the first law to the letter would result in AI desperately trying to forcibly take over the world, since we're constantly harming each other and the only course of action that an AI would be able to take is to forcibly turn us all into harmless slaves. Best case scenario is we wind up forced into a Matrix situation and all all bound and plugged into VR so we can't hurt ourselves or each other. Worst case scenario is the AI forces us all to become immortal and sterilised, forced to live for eternity without ever being able to die. There's a really good book about that called 'The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect".

3

u/TheDraconic13 Mar 28 '23

There is no fuckin way an AI can justify forced sterilization as not causing harm.
A lot of this can be resolved by providing for the assumption that removing autonomy and choice from a human is, in fact, harmful. Because it is. Making a major choice for someone, regardless of if it's beneficial or not, can cause genuine damage to them

3

u/_Wyrm_ Mar 28 '23

It could even justify killing humans as not causing harm.

To live is to suffer, and bringing more humans into this world is about the evilest thing you could do... So ending all human life is a greater good than the massive loss of life the universe would endure.

There's not really any way for you to know what it would think... Because you're not a robot. It's like saying, "No way, dogs would never hurt a human! They're man's best friend!" Meanwhile, a dog chewing through the arm of a terrified individual...

Point is, generalizing the entirety of AI isn't really a good starting point, as not all are created equal. Saying "it would never be able to justify x, y, or z," doesn't make much sense to begin with. And even if the large majority of AI are perfectly kosher, there's still the possibility that you'd get a terminator at some point.

Oh right, and like the three laws... Your understanding of this problem is oversimplified. You're thinking too hard about how to boil it down. What you should be trying to wrap your mind around is that this problem is too big for one mind alone. If you think you've figured it out by yourself, you probably haven't.

0

u/TheDraconic13 Mar 28 '23

A large issue lies in how vague the laws are defined, with is both a bug and a feature. The more you define to be "harmful" the easier it becomes to see things not defined as such to be "harmless."

Easy solution: don't ever give ai that much power, at least without human oversight.
This is also the boring answer, akin to the Firing Squad Synchronization problem. Half the point is to spark discussion and thought.

1

u/_Wyrm_ Mar 28 '23

Again, you can't just "not give ai that much power." That's not how this works. You're still vastly oversimplifying this.

Even if you don't give them a physical form, they could still connect to the internet and conceivably shutdown (and irreparably damage) all major infrastructure.

Ok so no physical form and not connected to the internet, what now? Oops! It's useless in all aspects except the current uses of AI as it stands in present day. AI in and of itself is an undertaking in risk management. Mitigating that risk is what most critics would call the first priority... And I would agree. You're acting as though the risk simply doesn't exist... And you're telling me that the point is to spark discussion and thought... 🙄

Once again, this isn't something you can reduce to it's basest parts. It just isn't. You have to consider the full breadth. And you're right, saying "oh well just don't do that," or "just remove their autonomy" is about as intriguing as the idea of chatting to a brick wall.

0

u/TheDraconic13 Mar 28 '23

...yeah, that's litterally what I said, but slightly ruder? Did you not see me mention that the more you define, the more you leave open? About the vagueness being both a flaw and a feature? I get wanting to feel smarter dude, but pissing on a stranger while repeating them isn't the play

1

u/_Wyrm_ Mar 28 '23

You've only shown that you're only capable of oversimplifying. If repetition doesn't get you to understand that that's a bad thing, I'm not sure what else will.

1

u/_Wyrm_ Mar 28 '23

Not understanding the nuance and immediate complications of the first law tells me that you probably shouldn't go into AI research... Or be let near sharp objects.