Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Last_Jury5098 t1_jd5qxyn wrote

Nice blog thx for posting it!.

"Do you need to have a sense of morality in order to see inequity, or would a purely rational AI also see it?"

The AI will see it. The question is if it will see it as a problem.

A rational AI could see it as a problem but his depends on the main goals that the system tries to achieve.

For example it could conclude that the world could reach a higher economic output if inequity was lower or higher.

And then you get into the alignment problem. Maximizing economic output cant be the only objective,we have to make sure it wont kill us in the process and so on.

And then you get in the situation Where AI will be given a set of goals and a set of restrictions. A set of different parameters,reflecting a wide range of issues that are important to humans. And the system beeing given the restriction to not cross those bounderies. What a rational AI will conclude about inequality,based on those goals and restrictions,is impossible to predict. The only way to find out is to run it and see what it tells us.

A sense of morality could maybe be coded into the AI. It would be part of this set of restrictions. We can feed it human morals,but those morals in the end are arbitrary. And what AI will do when one moral consideration conflicts with a different one is again difficult to predict.

This isnt really what we want from AI either i think. We want it to come to the "right" conclusion by itself. Without it beeing led to the "right" conclusion artificially and arbitrarily.

In an ideal situation we want to feed it as less rules as possible. Because every aditional rule will make the system more complicated and unpredictable. By creating tension between different rules and objectives. We then we have to feed it priority,or create a system that allows it to determine priority. Which in the end is arbitrary again.

There is one hypothetical example that i thought of that is very hard to solve for AI. It gets down to the core of the problem.

We have a self driving car. The car recognizes that a crash is inevitable and it has 2 options. Option one leads to severe harm for the single driver of the car. And option 2 leads to severe harm of 2 bystanders. How do we get AI to ever chose between those 2 options.

And those 2 options are what the alignment problem comes down to in the end. Even an AI that has nothing but the benefit of humanity as a goal will have to make choices between the interests of individual humans,or groups of humans.

This is an arbitrary choice for humans,but how can AI make such an arbitrary choice? The only way for AI to solve this by itself is by giving it certain goals. Which brings me back to the start of this post.

14

turnip_burrito t1_jd5ud7f wrote

Here's what we'll do imo:

Just give it some set of morals (western democratic egalitarian most likely). The philosophical considerations will eventually all conclude "well we have to do something" and then they'll just give it morals that seem "good enough". Given the people developing the AI, it makes sense that it will adhere to their views.

4

visarga t1_jd773xf wrote

There is a new trend started by Stability and picked up by OpenAI that will provide base models for fine-tuning for each country/language/social group. Various groups are reacting to one-size-fits-all AI models.

This is an excellent article showing how AI models could impact communities effort to preserve their language.

> OpenAI's Whisper is another case study in Colonisation

https://blog.papareo.nz/whisper-is-another-case-study-in-colonisation/

And a positive one:

> How Iceland is using GPT-4 to preserve its language.

https://openai.com/customer-stories/government-of-iceland

When you got just 300k speakers of a language, you don't want the TTS and language model to make the new generation learn it wrong because the model didn't have good enough training data and made many mistakes. Kids are going to use AI in their own language, hence the risk of low quality responses impacting their small community even more.

5

SlowCrates t1_jd7uwhf wrote

I think that a painfully obvious problem, which AI's are probably already capable of solving, is this: Can you create a system that helps the disadvantaged, while not hindering the incentive-based private economy? Parameters will certainly include not eliminating individual wealth, not fully propping up the lower class, and not reducing our country's ability to defend itself.

I suspect that we're going to find out that our government is extremely archaic. But the pushback in revamping that system will outweigh, on a holy level, the promise that a revolutionary change could bring.

Interesting times ahead, to be sure...

2

visarga t1_jd763xk wrote

Apparently RLHF makes the model less calibrated. So the more morality you put into it, the less you can rely on its confidence.

1

BonzoTheBoss t1_jd7ic3g wrote

> The car recognizes that a crash is inevitable and it has 2 options. Option one leads to severe harm for the single driver of the car. And option 2 leads to severe harm of 2 bystanders.

And honestly, even if the "correct" answer is to allow one to die so that two may live, who will want to purchase a car that will sacrifice your life for strangers? I know that I wouldn't, even if I logically acknowledge that it may be the "right" decision, I still emotionally value my own life over those of strangers.

1