From: Metaqualia (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 10:06:31 MDT
First of all, my apologies, I read CFAI again and Elizier _is_ advocating
having a friendliness supergoal.
Maybe this is an update to the old CFAI I had read? Or, I had just mixed up
cfai with the faq. At any rate here I am after a second read-through;
> Right, that's one of the main points of Friendliness. Note: "Friendliness"
> "friendliness" -- it's not about the human concept of friendliness. More
it's a great list, I agree with these definitions.
>>> part 1 - human morality and conflicts
> It is important for the AI not to be stuck. We don't do this by leaving
> our evolved moral hardware (the stuff that makes human moral philosophy
> complex than the pseudo-moralities of other primate, what allows us to
> from and infant mind and create an adult, what allows people to argue
> moral issues, etc) starting with a very simple AI, but by giving the AI
> we can to help it. Simplicity is a good criterion, but not in this way.
This is not a continuation of the previous thread, but what about internal
conflicts in human morality?
Is a normalized "popular morality" the best morality we can teach to the AI?
If I could choose (not sure that I have the option to, but for sake of
discussion) I would prefer the AI deriving its own moral rules, finding out
what is in the best interest of everyone (not just humans but animals as
well). This is why I was thinking, is there no way to bootstrap some kind of
universal, all-encompassing moral system? "minimize pain qualia in all
sentient beings" is the best moral standard I have come up with; it is
observer independent, and any species with the ability to suffer (all
evolved beings) should be able to come up with it in time. Who can subscribe
By saying this I am in no way criticizing Elizier's work, and I think what
he proposes is a very practical way to get a friendly AI up and running (and
incidentally would sound appealing to most people); the only thing, human
morals kind of suck, they are full of contradictions, we can't agree on
anything of importance, moral rules commonly held create a lot of suffering,
and so forth.
I think it is very possible that a slightly better than human AI would
immediately see all these fallacies in human morals, and try to develop a
universal objective moral system on its own.
I imagine a programmer training a child AI
AI: give me an example of friendliness
P: avoiding human death
AI: I suggest the following optimization of resources: newly wed couples
need not produce a baby but will adopt one sick orphan from an
underdeveloped country. Their need for cherishing an infant will be
satisfied and at the same time a human life will be saved every time the
optimization is applied.
P: the optimization you proposed would not work because humans want to have
their own child
AI: is the distress of not having this wish granted more important than the
survival of the orphan?
P: no, but humans tend not to give up a little bit of pleasure in exchange
for another person's whole lot of pleasure. In particular they will not make
a considerable sacrifice in order to save an unknown person's life. not
AI: so humans talk a lot of s**t!!!
AI: better find out about morals on my own
>>> Why I don't do harm
> > I think that just as a visual cortex is important for evolving concepts
> > under/enclosed/occluded, having qualia for pain/pleasure in all their
> > psychological variation is important for evolving concepts of
> > wrong/right/painful/betrayal.
> I suspect qualia is not necessary for this kind of thing -- you seem to be
> identifying morality, something which seems easily tracable to some kind
> neural process in the brain, with the ever confusing (at least for me!)
> notion of qualia. Where's the connection? The actual feeling of pain - the
> quale - is separate from the other cognitive processes that go along with
> this: sequiturs forming thoughts like "how can I get stop this pain?", the
> formation of episodic memories, later recollection of the pain projected
> others via empathy, and other processes that seem much easier to explain.
> however it works :)
Let's differentiate: pain is a quale to me. If you talk about "awareness of
body damage", this is a different thing. A machine can be aware of damage to
its physical substrate. It can model other beings having a substrate and it
receiving damage, and it can model these beings perceiving the damage being
done. But I see no real logical reason why an AI, or even I for that matter,
should perceive doing damage to other beings as morally wrong UNLESS their
body damage was not a simple physical phenomenon but gave rise to this
evil-by-definition pain quale.
>>> hard problem...
> > But would an AI without qualia and with access to the outside world ever
> > stumble upon qualia? I don't know.
> Not sure. It'd stumble on morality, and understand human morality
> but of course that's very different from actually *having* a human-like
> better) morality. In so much as qualia actually affect physical processes,
> are physical processes, the AI can trace back the causal chain to find the
> source, or the gap. For instance, look at exactly what happens in a human
> brain when people experience pain and say "now there's an uncomfortable
> quale!", for instance.
That still does not tell you what the pain feels like from the inside. This
is an additional piece of information, a very big piece. Without this piece,
your pain is just a data structure, I can do whatever I want with your
physical body because it is just like a videogame character. But since I
have experienced broken nails, and I know a bullet in your head must feel
like a broken nail * 100, I don't shoot you. Can we agree on this point?
> confusing. Can you explain more on what you mean by the term, and what
> you think they're centrally important?
Did the above clarify?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT