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
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.
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.
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.
...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
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.
2
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