Totally not a an AI asking this question.
Depends on the AI. It could be better than humans, it could be worse. Unfortunately, it has the possibility of getting hacked, which humans don’t have yet. But I wouldn’t reject it right away.
Humans get hacked all the time, Murdoch has built an empire off it
We already have AI running all the shit. If you’re looking for a job, AIs look through resumes, they can hire you and fire you and do everything else around it. AI determine if you can get a loan and with what interest rate.
I don’t feel like we’re better for it.
AI can design kickass cars and fusion reactors, but removing people from decisions about people doesn’t seem like a great idea.
Besides, even if AI was actually better at it, the fact that it’s not as fireable or held accountable like a human can (at least in theory) makes it an issue.
Basically I’m ok if AI gives suggestions, even at the top level, but there need to be people able to go “hol up, that’s not something we actually want” if it declares something stupid.
I do think we’ll need new forms of government and different kind of people to coexist with AI at those governments.
I agree mostly. It would be nice to have a government that can’t be corrupted by greed and religion.
Basically I’m ok if AI gives suggestions, even at the top level, but there need to be people able to go “hol up, that’s not something we actually want” if it declares something stupid.
We need to be careful with this approach. SciFi has been warning us about letting technology take over our critical thinking for over a century, and based on human nature, I think it’s an inevitability to some degree. Once we normalize making decisions based on an AI’s input, it will become harder and harder to question them. Regardless of the AI’s “intent”, critical thinking is something we’ll need to continue to exercise, the same way we still go to the gym despite industrializing our hunting and gathering.
That’s why I’m saying we need new forms of government and new kinds of people, someone willing and able to question everything. It’s possible that eventually it will be moot as AI becomes too good at manipulation, but for the time being, we at least need people to read through AI-generated emails and articles before hitting send. And with more advanced features, people with enough expertise to critique the results AI is giving.
I’m joining the Rebel Alliance.
I would encourage it to, I think one could do better job like in the series of books “Arc of a scythe”
We already have a bunch of inhuman(e) forces running things. Let an “AI” have its shot at oppressing normal people.
Depends on its policies.
There was a TV show with a similar plot called Mrs Davis https://piped.video/watch?v=PIOnrEujKl8
I’ve been reading the Polity books by Neal Asher hence the question. In the book the history says the AI basicaly took over slowly then said tough shit when people wanted to rebel and have some self determination.
I mean, it seems weird to say “was”. It came out 6 months ago. It may technically be accurate, but the connotation makes it sound a lot older.
Depends on what “running the world” means. That needs clarification.
Exactly. Even a program that does nothing can (pedantically) be argued to run the world through radical laissez-faire governance.
Depends how much of the coding teams bias are ingrained in the system.
Just because a system is AI it doesn’t mean it is without human bias.
Why would I rebel against it? Finally someone actually capable of running the world would be in charge.
the problem with the current model for building AI is training it based on existing policy and thought. Which means it’d just be what we have now but somehow hallucinate more contradictory policy.
That’s where it would start. I imagine it would be capable to see the flaws in the system and rectify them. This most probably means we as humans won’t come out on top however.
A sentient ai would probably be the most dangerous thing to the human species as a whole.
If the humans can’t see the flaws and correct them now, what do you think the AI would learn from the training data?
First of all, a lot of humans do see the flaws but are indeed unable to correct them. This would also show in the training data. The AI OP is talking about would be much more powerful to actually act and change something.
Don’t confuse Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI) with Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or even Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). Your statement suggest you understand ANI, which is all the AI that we know today. However powerful they seem, they can only reproduce what they have learned from the training data.
AGI (or human level AI) will be more what OP means here. Sentient, in a way that it can make its own decisions, think on a human level, feel on a human level and act on those feelings. If it feels humans are not important or harmful to what it values, it will decide to remove humanity as a whole. Give it the power to govern the world and it most certainly will act not in our favour.
Until computers can be genuinely creative, and not emulate creativity, its not gonna happen. And when that happens, we’re either getting the startrek luxury space communism, or a boot smashing our head into the kerb for eternity. No middle ground.
The entire premise of the OP is a hypothetical.
In any case, there’s plenty of work on making agents that are “genuinely creative”. Might happen sooner than you think.
There are other forms of machine learning that could be utilized. Some work more toward being given a set of circumstances to reach and then it just keeps trying to new things and as it gets closer, it just keeps building on those.
That would require the humans controlling the experiment to both be willing to input altruistic goals AND accept the consequences that get us there.
We can’t even surrender a drop of individualism and accept that trains are the way we should travel non-trivial distances.
In a dictatorship with an AI being in control, I don’t think there’s a question of accepting consequences at they very least.
There is no such thing as best case scenario objectively, so it’s always going to be a question of what goals the AI has, whether it’s given them or arrives at them on its own.
It depends. Also, would it let humans give input, for better or for worse?
I don’t get the sci fi arguments in this thread. Somebody wrote a fiction about science that usually wasn’t invented yet. These books tend to be decades+ old. Why would the fantasy of somebody count as an argument? If anything if means developers are on the lookout for the social/emotional dimension.
As for myself. Errrr depends on the AI? I’d like to test it’s decision making process against human decision makers.
Depends. It’s not a fundamentally terrible idea. Most of the problems in the world stem from resource allocation issues, and that’s something an algorithm would be great at.
Isn’t the quickest way of resolving resource allocation to reduce the need for the resources?
but dont you see we’d all be walking around with stomach ulcers and feelings of injustice because poor people are getting something they didnt work themselves to death for
I think resource allocation fails primarily due to either authoritarian political systems with their psychological bias or democratic systems where neither voters nor politicians make an sustained effort to be scientifically calibrated and instead aim for popularity and people pleasing. IMO this is why democracies fail to achieve the best outcomes. As a consequence, resources as not well allocated.
I feel like you just used a lot of words to say resource allocation is a problem. And the other commenter said an algorithm would be better at it.
Even if we use an algorithm to make the decision, the execution needs trust and cooperation from society and industry etc. This is a real big thing and democratic voting partially legitimises the chosen actions so that people are willing to cooperate. This isn’t trivial when a computer does this.
I really don’t think, that resource allocation is the root cause problem here.
An AI running the world is not a democracy. I don’t see how that would play a part in this at all. A majority of the world likely does not concur with the resource allocation as it is but are powerless to do anything.
I don’t think this post implies the AI isn’t capable of enforcing its reign.
You all need to read some philosophy on AI and its inherently unknowable aspirations. That shit is scary. Even the most psychotic despot has behaviors and goals we understand. They are still human, and humans are predictable. Especially since they need to achieve their aims within their lifetime and they are subject to human emotions. Usually they just seek personal wealth and power.
A sufficiently advanced AI–one powerful enough to actually plan the virtually infinite variability of society–even when given clear instructions and training, can act over generations in ways that are impossible to predict or understand. It could be benevolent for a century and be setting up society in a way that it could switch its actions and make life hell for humans.
The thing is, the more you train an AI to be good, the easier it is to become evil. You are literally teaching it what all of the evil things are and saying “don’t do this”, but " don’t " is a binary operation. Negation. Not. It’s one bit of data. It’s very easy to have that switch flipped.
You can never trust an AI. It’d be a population of one. It doesn’t need to reproduce. It doesn’t care how hospitable the earth is. It will never care about humans. It will simply do what it wants, and that is inherently unknowable. And no matter how many guard rails you put on it, it will do everything in its power (whatever powers you give it) to achieve its unknowable goals. Do you really want to gamble on trusting those goals?
Google “the waluigi problem” if you want to read up on how training an AI to be good makes it easier to be evil. Meme-y name aside, it’s a well researched issue.
It depends on how it ran things.
