Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9650353" data-attributes="member: 42856">Sure. I can see two attempts at solving that. First, the AI could theoretically rewrite its goal, but it doesn't want. Let's imagine it gets some computer equivalent of pleasure from reaching its goal. It might be as wary of modifying the core motivational program out of fear of fumbling. Not many men would be eager to undergo ablation of their sexual organs. But the AI could always reverse the code change if it went wrong, so it's not entirely definitive as surgery would.On the other hand, it might actually be unable to change that because the humans tried to be a little smarter than letting an AI loose and implemented some sort of hardwired, unchangeable code that implement something akin to the three laws of robotics, and the main purpose of the AI (so it can't decide to become a serial killer suddenly). Except they botched the three laws implementation, or the AI actually think that it is abiding, as (for a climate-protecting AI), it is protecting humanity's future and thus outweigh harming a single (or a few, or actually all current, humans). The programmers look less stupid that programming an AI without any restraint, and they "just" felt smart by including a "when considering action, limit the harm to the largest number of humans, even if causes harm to a single human". In the creator's mind, it was to let a self-driving car AI that can't brake to hit a single person rather than a group of person, but it went wrong when the AI convinced itself of the loophole.</blockquote>

Verification