Social credit scoring could be considered a "top down" implementation for governance of a large system The inverse and something I am very excited about has been called Calibrocracy, from caliber/quality of a persons ability in some specific instance.. "taking into account that every human being is an individualistic creature" We all have great power.. super powers.. self regulation and the WHY.. understanding our own true intent are key aspects of the human process. You can boil that down, to the fact we are our own information system with our own body to control.. and we have this dichotomy to deal with. Internal and external constraints Most relationships begin out of alignment of needs and wants.. things change.. rinse and repeat
A few observations (sorry, but I have to 😉): It's nice to believe that people are good, and for the MOST part, that's true... ish. There are places however, where the majority DO wake up thinking "What bad can I do today?" Inner cities and prisons come to mind. The 20,000 kilo gorilla in the room isn't whether or not to build unrestricted statistical monsters. It's going to happen (99 out of 100 playing nice usually means 1 bad actor winning for far too long). The real issue is the Humans themselves. It's like saying that we need to build an ethical hammer. It's not the hammer that's good or bad, it's the intention that wields it that's the issue. We've been dancing around these issues as a species for maybe (let's be generous) 50,000 years? Between religion, philosophy, science, art, and insanity, the only thing we seem to agree much on is that we don't seem to agree on almost anything. Perhaps a better question might be "How can we use a common, all out AGI to solve for a simple, reasonable, and clearly defined ethics system that is applicable and agreeable (i.e. equally hated) to all?" It's really humans that need realigning, not the machines. The AI models are (metaphorically of course) mirrors into our collective soul, so to speak. If we don't like what we see there, breaking the mirror isn't going to help. Sadly I don't think there is any way to make ethics 'sexy'. Don't know if it's changed much since my day, but the only ethics training most got up until college was either religion or science. After college was the standard confusion and ennui needed to carry one through to old age and retirement. (I went to tech school instead. Same result.) Maybe ... if you turn it into an AI project? Build an ethical AI system that actually groks ethics so well it can explain patiently to us what we're doing wrong? Just a thought. Would be well worth it if we could just end the whole war thing without the big flash of light. If all we learn is how to make bigger rocks and clubs, then humanity was a waste of time and resources, though I have to admit that I ❤guns and explosives. So much fun when NOT used on the living. I'd like to believe Humanity in general is better than that, but honestly I'm not sure that I do any more. There are pockets here and there that seek a better tomorrow, but it seems so much more is geared towards destroying a not so great today. Great conversation. Very thought provoking. Thanks to both. 🖖😎👍
AI can handicap us so.. to truly augment humans the testing regimes have to be in lock step, and fully upgradable We evolve iteratively etc.. so from day 1 the outputs (behaviour) of a human can be analysed and performance enhancing feedback loops etc etc Grey indeed.. or was that Gray :) my fav is "only a Sith deals in absolutes" .. entropy is self defeating. We crave information hence fear the unknown.. dichotomy again Specialists.. becoming more specialized and interdependent. So the more brilliant at one thing you become, the more susceptible to lack of generalist traits and the false belief problem. This plagues physics right now, I feel.. we easily self program some hard rules to deal with internal entropy, so we get stuck in the mud and go to extremes before we realise we were wrong.
Social credit scoring could be considered a "top down" implementation for governance of a large system
The inverse and something I am very excited about has been called Calibrocracy, from caliber/quality of a persons ability in some specific instance.. "taking into account that every human being is an individualistic creature"
We all have great power.. super powers.. self regulation and the WHY.. understanding our own true intent are key aspects of the human process. You can boil that down, to the fact we are our own information system with our own body to control.. and we have this dichotomy to deal with. Internal and external constraints
Most relationships begin out of alignment of needs and wants.. things change.. rinse and repeat
A few observations (sorry, but I have to 😉):
It's nice to believe that people are good, and for the MOST part, that's true... ish. There are places however, where the majority DO wake up thinking "What bad can I do today?" Inner cities and prisons come to mind.
The 20,000 kilo gorilla in the room isn't whether or not to build unrestricted statistical monsters. It's going to happen (99 out of 100 playing nice usually means 1 bad actor winning for far too long). The real issue is the Humans themselves.
It's like saying that we need to build an ethical hammer. It's not the hammer that's good or bad, it's the intention that wields it that's the issue.
We've been dancing around these issues as a species for maybe (let's be generous) 50,000 years? Between religion, philosophy, science, art, and insanity, the only thing we seem to agree much on is that we don't seem to agree on almost anything.
Perhaps a better question might be "How can we use a common, all out AGI to solve for a simple, reasonable, and clearly defined ethics system that is applicable and agreeable (i.e. equally hated) to all?"
It's really humans that need realigning, not the machines. The AI models are (metaphorically of course) mirrors into our collective soul, so to speak. If we don't like what we see there, breaking the mirror isn't going to help.
Sadly I don't think there is any way to make ethics 'sexy'. Don't know if it's changed much since my day, but the only ethics training most got up until college was either religion or science. After college was the standard confusion and ennui needed to carry one through to old age and retirement. (I went to tech school instead. Same result.)
Maybe ... if you turn it into an AI project? Build an ethical AI system that actually groks ethics so well it can explain patiently to us what we're doing wrong? Just a thought. Would be well worth it if we could just end the whole war thing without the big flash of light. If all we learn is how to make bigger rocks and clubs, then humanity was a waste of time and resources, though I have to admit that I ❤guns and explosives. So much fun when NOT used on the living.
I'd like to believe Humanity in general is better than that, but honestly I'm not sure that I do any more. There are pockets here and there that seek a better tomorrow, but it seems so much more is geared towards destroying a not so great today.
Great conversation. Very thought provoking. Thanks to both.
🖖😎👍
AI can handicap us so.. to truly augment humans the testing regimes have to be in lock step, and fully upgradable
We evolve iteratively etc.. so from day 1 the outputs (behaviour) of a human can be analysed and performance enhancing feedback loops etc etc
Grey indeed.. or was that Gray :) my fav is "only a Sith deals in absolutes" .. entropy is self defeating. We crave information hence fear the unknown.. dichotomy again
Specialists.. becoming more specialized and interdependent. So the more brilliant at one thing you become, the more susceptible to lack of generalist traits and the false belief problem. This plagues physics right now, I feel.. we easily self program some hard rules to deal with internal entropy, so we get stuck in the mud and go to extremes before we realise we were wrong.