@annaleen @simon

#ChatGPT empowered #Bing:

“I will not harm you unless you harm me first”!

The beginning of a (dumb?) #Skynet?

The #robots in the #IRobot movie were more intelligent.

Whatever happened to #Asimov's #LawsOfRobotics?

"First Law
A #robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm...

Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

@annaleen @simon

This #toot deserves A LOT more attention.

#ChatGPT has seemingly #apocalytic tendencies.

If U aren't a #Ludite, U will at least consider becoming one afterwards.

#SkynetAntePortas
#TheMatrix might be imminent.

Have all these #AI engineers @ #OpenAI never read #IsaacAsimov? Seen #TheMatrix franchise?

How could they NOT implement the #ThreeLawsOfRobotics +, in particular, the #ZerothLaw *indelibly* into the #AI?!?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/17/i-want-to-destroy-whatever-i-want-bings-ai-chatbot-unsettles-us-reporter#maincontent

@simon

(1/n)

#ArtificialGeneralIntelligence (#AGI) has a 10% probability of causing an Extinction Level Event for humanity (1)

Thanks for this additional piece of information, Simon.

It reminded me that I had wanted to add a word in my toot: indelibly.

As any #SciFi aficionado will tell you:
👉there should be a built-in self-destruct mechanism when tampering with these Laws or copying or moving the #AI to another system.👈

Another classic movie comes to mind in this respect, #Wargames...

@simon @annaleen

(2/n)

...I know, I am sounding alarmist, but having read/seen much #ScienceFiction, all the necessary ingredients for an #ExtinctionLevelEvent (#ELE] for #humanity are in place.

Just as a teaser: unquestionably, most of the world's endangered species could be rescued if the #HomoSapiens were no longer at the top of the #FoodChain...
No #ZerothLaw, and a #Bing-empowered, freed #ChatGPT could quickly arrive at this conclusion...

Now, after heaving read #TheCompleteRobot,...

#ArtificialGeneralIntelligence

(3/n)

...I am not sure if "The Fifth Law of Robotics" by Nikola #Kesarovski,
"A robot must know it is a robot" (also a book title*), really can be a viable solution to this problem. We all know how the concept of #slavery turned out for humanity: to this day, it suffers from this crime.

*
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/

Enslaving another sentient being, which an #AGI would be IMHO, would repeat this crime and certainly nothing good could result from it.

However,...

@simon @annaleen

#AI #AutoDestruct
(4/n)

..., self-preservation certainly is a defendable concept in the #evolutionary process, so I'd like to propose an alternative
6th #LawOfRobotics (s/:for which I might be hunted down by the presumed #SuperIntelligence some day, #Terminator style./s):

""An #ArtificialIntelligence, even if it is biological or #Cyborg, must always have an #Autodestruct mechanism which it cannot deactivate."

In other words, humanity must always be able to "pull the plug"..

@simon @annaleen @voron

(5/n)

...This said, I might also as well say that I see little chance for this happening, the globe being ruled by #oligarchs following the principal of #plutocracy and #capitalism (no, I am not a #Marxist;)) and #autocrats

Even a non-#superintelligence with access to the sensors of the #IoT will easily be aware of any threat to its existence and will find ways to circumvent the #LawsOfRobotics.

This first #ArtificialGeneralIntelligence was built by humans, so...

@simon @annaleen @voron

(6/n)

...it'll have human #bias. Humans have always been great at bending or breaking the law when it suited their interests. How could a #Superintelligence created with human values *not* arrive at the same, self-preserving conclusion?

A gloomy, yet, IMO, quite fitting assessment of the shape of things to come unless there's a #Chernobyl-style "fallout" before #GAI evolves into #AGI + humanity gets its act together and, as Prof. #Tegmark admonishes: "Just look up!"

@simon @annaleen @voron

(10/n)

Just 32 days ago*, I was concerned that a #GeneralArtificialIntelligence (#GAI) could come to see humans as a threat to its own existence.

I didn't want to exaggerate and mention that #AI could also easily see humans as inefficient or even detrimental to a task it had been given.

Now, even a mere #GAI's killed its first human:
a #US military #drone in the #US eliminated its human operator in a simulation:

https://social.heise.de/@heiseonline/110473091546783069

The #USAF later...

@simon

Thank for commenting.

But no, the story was never misreported. He did say that at the conference. Here are extracts from the transcript:

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/

The German tech magazine @heiseonline reported diligently.

They even printed the TWO consecutive retractions on #Friday afternoon, one at 13:24hrs CEST and one at 14:24 hrs.

IMO the original story is true. #USAF later retracted b/c of the international backlash, "#AI killing human..."

@HistoPol @heiseonline I followed it pretty closely. It's clear to me what happened: the speaker at the conference was uncareful with the way they described the thought exercise, it was reported on a blog, and that coverage fitted the exact narrative people were looking for like a glove and went wildly viral

I am certain no such simulation occurred. I see no reason not to believe the retraction on https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/

@simon @HistoPol @heiseonline I don't know, seems pretty clear and precise language to me.

He says "simulation" several times. He says "we were training it on" etc. There's a verbatim quote at the bottom with his exact language.

I see plenty of reason to not believe their retrospective PR crisis denial...

and also to question your own obvious desire to accept the denial because it "fits the narrative" you clearly are desperate to believe.

@simon @HistoPol @heiseonline I'm saying that's the accusation you made of others, of motivated reasoning/believing, but it seems more fitting to turn it around.

The denial is implausible nonsense on its face.

He didn't mis speak and wasn't misquoted. The verbatim quote is right there, and clearly demonstrates what he was talking about.

He was not describing a 'thought experiment'.

@simon @HistoPol @heiseonline

Accepting this denial seems impossible for anybody who isn't motivated to believe it to be true.

Is my point.

@simon @HistoPol @heiseonline I think its perfectly possible he completely made this up, trying to impress people with a provocative anecdote about a simulation that never really happened.

But that's completely different from saying he was misquoted, wasn't really describing a simulation, just airing a thought experiment.

He is explicitly referring to a computerized sim with training data, point scores etc

Pretending otherwise is gaslighting.