AI with a conceptual model of what is and isn’t fiction isn’t anywhere near the main stream yet. Maybe we fix that before we give it access to real world actions. Then yeah also morality and ethics
This “moral code” would only be a suggestion rather than a hard constraint, given how this current iteration of AI works.
Britain also refused to use the crossbow, or use submarines for a time because it was seen as unsporting or something similar.
This will be another of those.
Or how about we don’t build fucking AI weapons?
No, we must build the Civilian Spine Shredder V1™ with a moral code so it can shred civilian spines morally.
Weapons and morals don’t exactly go together. Oposing sides.
Is the man suggesting the glorified search engine has a consciousness?
It ain’t the killing machine that needs to have the morals, you twit.
How about we use a very old established moral system.
I propose you shall not kill.
Funny enough, that line can also be interpreted as “thou shalt not murder” which really changes the meaning. I prefer the standard translation though as a pacifist.
This is an important conversation to have since I read the other day that the UK was supposedly taking humans out of the decision chain.
Should? That not a reassuring word
- A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Rule 0 tends to have… unanticipated side effects.
Like making us batteries or slaves. Yea… Can’t have an ai save us from ourselves
