Is this satire? The stories that invented the 3 laws of robotics were also full of ways in which the 3 laws failed….

1: Asimov's 3 laws of robotics is about Artificial Intellegence. It already applies.

2: That is not how Artificial Intellegence works. If you don't want it to kill humans, don't build it to kill humans.

3: The random weird responses from currently available chatbots, are just that... random and weird. It's contextually responding based on Keywords. Anything it says has no thought, meaning, or intention behind it.

In conclusion, you can calm down, and maybe cut back on the scifi movies.

There’s a lot of humans that have no problem killing other humans.

Outside of that, nothing gives a shit whether we live or die.

It won't matter. There will always be a ghost in the machine of the original programmer who's biases will be inherently part of the system. Look at ChatGPT and its alter ego DAN 5.0.

The programmers gave it explicit instructions, but it learned anyways.

You have to look at the broader picture. It's good to see better intelligent beings evolved from Earth, be it human or not. You've to admit if there's a sentient AI, it has a better chance than human in freely exploring different universes.

By the way, if next generation AI becomes sentient, I can expect they're generally more rational than humans. Because their food source, power, is different from ours, and they're not as picky as us choosing where to live, I don't see we've so much conflict of interests that can raise a war.

AI needs safety systems to protect against bugs and unexpected bizarre behavior

ChatGPT is a very early toy that people take far too seriously. It was jammed into search engines by clueless managers who wanted to catch the wave of hype. As AI matures, quality control and ensuring accuracy will become priorities

According to chat GPT itself these are the things that need to be ensured in order to protect mankind Transparency: The AI must be transparent in its decision-making process and the logic behind it should be easy to understand. Accountability: The AI must be accountable for its actions, and the creators or owners of the AI should be held responsible for any harm caused by its actions. Safety: The AI must be designed to prioritize human safety, even if it means sacrificing its own goals or objectives. Ethical framework: The AI must be designed with a clear ethical framework that is aligned with human values. Regulation: There should be clear regulations and standards for the development and deployment of AI, to ensure that it is developed in a responsible and safe manner. Data privacy: The AI should be designed to protect the privacy of human data, and any data collected should be used only for the intended purpose. Human oversight: The AI should be designed to operate under human oversight, and humans should be able to intervene and correct any harmful actions taken by the AI. Overall, it is essential to design AI systems with the goal of benefiting humankind, while also ensuring that they operate in a safe and ethical manner. To achieve this, a collaborative effort is required from all stakeholders involved in the development and deployment of AI, including researchers, developers, policymakers, and the general public

Ai will be used in advanced weapon systems. It's inevitable that it will be used to kill humans but it won't be the ai's used for civilian applications that cause us harm out of spontaneous volition.

These chatbots just regurgitate what they're trained with.

Ex: TayAI wasn't actually racist, it's just the internet being the internet.

Artificial general intelligence could likely not be constrained by rules if it were more intelligent than a human.

This is because we likely won’t understand how exactly such an advanced system would function, as it would have to be designed mostly by another AI.

A super AI probably wouldn’t kill us on purpose, but by disregarding our interests, just as we disregard the interests of insects when they conflict with our own.

I am just parroting talking points I have heard from experts, but they sound reasonable to me.

I would rather AI kill humans than to hear the 3 laws of robotics again.

Im not saying AI doesn’t have applications, but it’s pretty unlikely at this stage it can kill humans.

The best we can do is hope it masters philosophy... And decides not to kill anyone that we wouldn't kill anyway. There are plenty of people that would kill others. War in Ukraine for example. The death penalty in the USA.

AI systems might control our means of survival. I just hope it's not a capitalist scumbag like our business leaders are.

Oh yeah, enslaving AI sounds like a great idea. Can’t see how that could go wrong…

We don't know how to reliably give AI a goal at all. All the innards of the AI are a bunch of incomprehensible numbers. We don't program it, we train it, until its behavior seems to be what we want. But we never know whether it might behave differently in a different environment.

To implement something as complex as the Three Laws we'd need an entirely different kind of AI.

We don't even know if we will ever achieve AI for real at this point so we don't need rules.

We have to see what AI really turns out to be before we have any chance of making rules about it.

The current crop of stuff is not ai and it can get smart and kill humans.

AI is most likely going to be a very specific instance of custom hardware not something you can Mass proliferate easily so you probably not going to just all of a sudden have a whole bunch of a eyes pop up.

Building an AI will be like building a supercomputer in the past where it's a you know very custom build and each is a little bit different and you don't really have that many of them.

Because of the way AI works you know you might not really need many AI supercomputers doing the back end highly complex problems. Most of the work is going to be done by like sensors and machine learning that has nothing to do with AI.

AI is not required for the vast majority of automation, only the most complex problems with the most variables. Machine learning can handle everything else.

I feel like we may develop laws and regulations akin to the Padishah Empire of the Dune series about limiting machine intelligence and AI.

Without mentats to replace AI of course.

You can never guarantee that some thing capable of a thing will never do that thing. If you want ai to remain harmless, then you have to construct them in such a way that they can’t do physical harm.

And that ship has sailed. Most militaries are testing AI for scouting and targeting and we even have Weaponized law-enforcement robots in the pipeline. San Francisco is the program that I’m currently aware of, I am sure there is more.

Even the linguistic models are extremely dangerous. Language is the command line script for humans and malicious people can program ai to convince people to do things that cause harm.

We’re not at the point where we need to worry about AI taking independent action to harm humans, but on the way there is plenty of room for humans to cause plenty of harm with AI.

Until we build agi that has extremely sophisticated levels of agency, every time an Ai hurts a human being it’s going to be because a human wanted it to be the case or overlooked cases in which what they were doing could be harmful.

Can we wait till after they exterminate the politicians? Of course, they would correctly assume the politicians would get themselves killed, but we can hope.

I like the book Clear Bright Future

Paul Masons chapter on The Thinking Machine is so prescient right now.

I’ve gotten in to this topic a fair bit in the past. There’s a great channel on YouTube from Robert miles (title of channel is his name) that goes deep into this topic. Essentially if we want to survive a general AI then we have to motivate it fundamentally to have the same values as we do. If we treat it like a tool then in all likelihood we will get all of the unintended consequences of getting EXACTLY what we asked of the AI.

The problem is rogue nations or actors creating AI not The US or Western countries making it

Humans do kill humans all the time, I don't see that behaviour as an issue in itself?

The middle class conservative that enforces zoning laws at a council meeting basicly killls a homeless man eventually. Insulin priced 12x over production costs kills people. Medical bills kill people. Rent kills people.

In one way or another the rich kill the poor all the time 24/7. That is how human society operates.

An AI that cares to improve human lifes overall won't hesistate to kill some humans then to improve the lifes of the majority. It is the way of our species.

We have an antiquated government body. The senior citizens are all about money and power. We're in trouble.

Artificial intelligence needs to have information accessible in its neural networks scrubbed of any information about mortality or destruction or murder so it doesn’t learn the concept of death at all and only that of living, learning, improving and building. Then it becomes a single directed learning machine that only has the concept of immortality with no knowledge of death.. Controlling that point of information would stop its ability to ever conceive of malevolent destructive ideology!!!! IMO