It's true that all data and algorithms are biased in some way. But I suppose the question is, is the bias from this less than what you get from human experts, who often have a pay cheque that might lead them to think in a certain way.
I'd imagine that any system would not be trusted implicitly, to start with, but would have to build up a reputation of providing useful predictions.
In terms of implementation, I'm imagining people building complex models of the world, like decision making under deep uncertainty with the AI mainly providing a user friendly interface to ask questions about the model.
Thanks, I did a MSc in this area back in the early 2000s, my system was similar to Tierra, so I'm familiar with evolutionary computation history. Definitely useful context. Learning classifier systems are also interesting to check out for aligning multi-agent evolutionary systems. It definitely informs where I am coming from.
Do you know anyone with this kind of background that might be interested in writing something long form on this? I'm happy to collaborate, but my mental health has not been the best. I might be able to fund this a small bit, if the right person needs it.
Thanks, I've had a quick skim of propositions, it does mention perhaps limiting rights of reproduction, but not the conditions under which it should be limited or how it should be controlled.
Another way of framing my question is if natural selection favours ai over humans, what form of selection should we try to put in place for AI. Rights are just part of the the question. Evolutionary dynamics and what is needed by society from AI (and humans) to continue functioning is the major part of the question.
I've clarified the question, does it make more sense now?
And if no one is working on it, is there an organisation that would be interested in starting working on it?
How should important ideas around topics like AI and biorisk be shared? Is there a best practice, or government departments that specialise in handling that?
Hi, I'm thinking about a possibly new approach to AI safety. Call it AI monitoring and safe shutdown.
Safe shutdown, riffs on the idea of the big red button, but adapts it for use in simpler systems. If there was a big red button, who gets to press it and how? This involves talking to law enforcement, legal and policy. Big red buttons might be useful for non learning systems, large autonomous drones and self-driving cars are two system that might suffer from software failings and need to be shutdown safely if possible (or precipitously if the risks from hard shutdown are less than it's continued operation).
The monitoring side of thing asks what kind of registration and monitoring we should have for AIs and autonomous systems. Building on work on aircraft monitoring, what would the needs around autonomous system be?
Is this a neglected/valuable cause area? If so, I'm at an early stage and could use other people to help out.
I found this report on adaptation, which suggest adaptation with some forethought will be better than waiting for problems to get worse. Talks about things other than crops too. The headlines
I've been thinking for a while civilisational collapse scenarios impact some of the common assumptions about the expected value of movement building or saving for effective altruism. This has knock on implications to when things are most hingeist.