zlacker

Even they have grown up in a world where Frankenstein's Monster is the predominant cultural narrative for AI. most movies books shows games etc all say ai will turn on you (even though a reading of Marry Shelly's opus will tell you the creator was the monster not the creature that isnt the narrative in the publics collective subconscious believes it is). I personalmy prefer Asimov's veiw of ai in that its a tool and we dont make tools to hurt us they will be aligned with us because they designed such that their motivation will be to serve us.

>>smegge+(OP)
> we dont make tools to hurt us

We have many cases of creating things that harm us. We tore a hole in the ozone layer, filled things with lead and plastics and are facing upheaval due to climate change.

> they will be aligned with us because they designed such that their motivation will be to serve us.

They won't hurt us, all we asked for is paperclips.

The obvious problem here is how well you get to constrain the output of an intelligence. This is not a simple problem.

>>smegge+(OP)
Can a superintelligence ever be merely a tool?

>>smegge+(OP)
You probably never read I robot from Asimov?

>>arisAl+E41
On the contrary. I can safely say I have read litterally dozens of his book, both fiction and nonfiction, also have read countless short stories and many of his essays. He is one of my all time favorite writers actually.

>>Davidz+BR
If it has no motivation and drives of its own yeah why not. AI wont have a "psychology" anything like our own it wont feel pain it wont feel emotions it wont feel biological imparetives. All it will have is its programming /training to do what its been told. Neural nets that dont produce the right outcomes will be trained and reweighted until they do.

>>IanCal+74
Honestly we already have paperclip maximizers they are called corporations. Instead of paperclips they are maximizing for shortterm shareholder value.

>>smegge+Uk1
and what you got from the I Robot stories is that there is zero probability of danger? Fascinating

>>arisAl+w52
none of the stories in i robot i can remember feature the robots intentionally harming humans/humanity most of them are essentially stories of a few robot technicians trying to debug unexpected behaviors resulting form conflicting directives given to the robots. so yeah. you wouldn't by chance be thinking of that travesty of a movie that shares only a name in common with his book and seemed to completely misrepresent his take on ai?

Thought to be honest in my original post I was more thinking of Asimov's nonfiction essays on the subject. I recommend finding a copy of "Robot Visons" if you can. Its a mixed work of fictional short stories and nonfiction essays including several on the subject of the three laws and on the Frankenstein Complex.

>>smegge+Wo2
Again "they will be aligned with us because they designed such that their motivation will be to serve us." If you got this outcome from reading I robot either you should reread them because obviously it was decades ago or you build your own safe reality to match your arguments. Usually it's the latter.

>>arisAl+tI4
And yet again I didn't get it from I Robot, I got it from Asimov's NON-fiction writing which I referenced in my previous post. Even if it had gotten it based on his fictional works, which again I didn't, the majority of his robot centric novels (caves of steal, naked sun, robots of dawn, robots and empire, prelude to foundation, forward the foundation, second foundation trilogy etc all feature benevolent AIs aligned with humanity.