It seems to me that a great deal of the consideration about AI ethics hinges upon questions about the unintended consequences of design decisions.
First, I think it is a bit of a problem to say that unintended consequences are connected to an ethical problem. If the consequences are unintended, that means it could not have been foreseen. That means these consequences are not actually part of an ethical concern.
This is a curated list of thinkers, writings, and institutions that reflect a deeper, spiritually serious approach to AI ethics, grounded not in spectacle or fear, but in wisdom, moral imagination, and theological insight.
I’ve been thinking about the EA fear that an AI superintelligence will wipe out the human race.
There is the thought experiment that we create a superintelligence and direct it to make paper clips. It would become so efficient and fixated on creating paper clips that it would sacrifice humanity just to become more efficient at creating paper clips.
I have been thinking that this is a far-fetched fear. People have been watching too many sci-fi movies like the Matrix and Terminator. What about Star Trek? Why can’t that be our future for intelligent machines? All we have to do is NOT hook up the computers to weapons, and bingo! No apocalypse! Right?
Not so fast. Let’s suppose we do NOT hook up the machines to weapons. Let’s suppose that the superintelligent AI only has access to chat with humans. Well, it would have the ability to play 17 dimensional chess with a number of humans, and lead them down the narcissistic path to where they became convinced that they needed to wipe out Canada. Or perhaps the AI convinced a leader of that, and then convinced a certain key group of followers to trust the guy. The machine would be achieving what it wanted to achieve without physically being hooked up to weapons.
I think that every philosophy ultimately seeks the good of all. The distinction with the ideas driving Effectual Altruism is that you can do things that might seem selfish or mean or greedy if those things actually help the most people over time. I know I’m over simplifying things but that is my gut feeling about it. I’m not trying to be adversarial – I think the “triage” nature of the idea has a certain truth to it. Passing over a dying person to help a person who can be saved seems mean, but it is definitely the thing to do. But considering the influence of this ethical framework, it bears some critical examination.
The ethical UX movement seems to have a very limited ethical agenda. I understand the need for watching out for racial bias based on the data set a LLM is trained on. But there are a lot of hidden biases there. Humans are flawed creatures in many twisted ways. But I see deep systemic narcissism and intellectual/emotional pornography as being the biggest danger. We’re about to hit the most isolated and insane and hopelessly lonely society that has ever walked the earth.
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
