From: Alexei Turchin (alexeiturchin@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2010 - 03:26:05 MST
Most naive AI projects would try to implement Asimov's laws - because these
laws have biggest advertising. (And we know that Asimovs laws are not safe)
But soon they will realize that Asimov's laws are tautology. Because
safety is defines as "no harm". But what is "harm"?
So may be we should prepare "extended version" of Asimov laws, which could
be implemented by any AI project and which make it safer. (But not
absolutely safe - it is unrealistic goal)
Important point here is that such "laws" should be mutely independent, as we
see in car driving laws:
a) do not drink and drive
b) fasten seat belts
c) do not run quicker then 80 km/h
d) obey signs.
This independence could help to adopt friendliness gradually.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Piaget Modeler
<piagetmodeler@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Would Asimov's three laws be an easier starting point?
> If not, why not?
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:20:07 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [sl4] Simple friendliness: plan B for AI
> > From: andrew@thenationalpep.co.uk
> > To: sl4@sl4.org
>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Alexei Turchin <alexeiturchin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 3) AI must comply with all existing CRIMINAL an CIVIL laws. These laws
> are
> > > the first attempt to create a friendly AI – in the form of state. That
> is an
> > > attempt to describe good, safe human life using a system of rules. (Or
> > > system of precedents). And the number of volumes of laws and their
> > > interpretation speaks about complexity of this problem - but it has
> already
> > > been solved and it is not a sin to use the solution.
> >
> > Most states in human history, including most now existing, are pretty
> > much the definition of *un*friendly. That there has never been a case
> > yet where people's rule-of-thumb attempts to "describe good, safe
> > human life using a system of rules" haven't led to the death,
> > imprisonment and in many cases torture of many, many people, seems to
> > me one of the stronger arguments against a rule-based system.
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/andrew1308 - buy my books
> > The National Pep - Pop Music to hurt you forever -
> http://thenationalpep.co.uk
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT