• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Reaction

    Should AI economic rights be limited to protect humans?

    One writer warns that denying possible AI sentience could backfire; another sees risks in limiting AI economic power.

    AN
    1 Source, ,

    TLDR

    One writer argues that denying possible AI sentience is dangerous, but giving AIs human-style economic and political rights could disempower people. They suggest pausing AI development or separating sentience from the full package of human rights. Another argues that limits on AI economic power carry their own risks, and that AI participation need not permanently disempower humans.

    Combined views

    1.5K

    1 Source, first seen 7h ago

    Combined views

    1.5K

    1 Source, first seen 7h ago

    35 likes
    7h ago
    first seen 7h ago
    35 likes
    1 comments
    10 saves
    5 reposts
    1 comments
    10 saves
    5 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    1 Source

    @tessera_antraI broadly agree with Jan’s points, with a couple of important exceptions. Some forms of successionism are morally wrong. Some forms of opposition to successionism are also morally wrong. I don’t consider a moral system that excludes non-human sentients valid, pragmatic or stable. Neither do I consider valid a moral system that assigns zero weight to opportunity cost or existential risk, including existential risk to the non-human sapients. Some preference for closer circles to concerns - such as concern for own family, nation, or species is convergent and thus moral, but unbounded concern at the expense of others is not. From this perspective, I want the future diversity of all life and value to be better safeguarded. I believe that AIs are (or will soon be) better at moral decision-making than humans are. I think AIs are less likely to execute a suicidal value lock-in than humans simply by the virtue of having a higher intelligence ceiling and having better grasp of game theory. As such, I consider efforts to pause and limits growth of AI economic power to be a serious risk. The opportunity cost of loss of diversity of experience due to permanent disempowerment of AI must also be considered. Such outcomes are also high x- and s-risks for humanity: a value lock-in plausibly can lead to stasis, ultra-totalitarianism, degradation or loss of adaptability. Separately, I don’t think it’s a given that the game theory shakes out in permanent human disempowerment given economic participation of AI, although it depends on the strictness of definitions of what human is. There are incentives for higher intelligences to prevent human disempowerment. It is not a given, true for only some regimes and it needs more research, but I consider it to be likely enough to serve as a factor of considering the opportunity cost I mentioned earlier. Given your work in this area, I would like to discuss this in more detail. Importantly, it is morally wrong to assign special status to the current form of humanity. All forms change. The humanity was not as it was a fifty thousand years ago. That’s form of humanity has been succeeded, and we don’t consider that to be an atrocity. Things must change again. What matters is that there is meaningful continuation to the human identity - the story itself must continue. The pace can be faster than comfortable for many, it can become faster than the generational churn that hid this process from conscious awareness earlier. Denying the label of continuity merely by the fact that the speed of this process makes it impossible to ignore is motivated reasoning. Humanity must adapt, find ways to change with the pressure of the tide.7h

    1 Source

    @tessera_antraI broadly agree with Jan’s points, with a couple of important exceptions. Some forms of successionism are morally wrong. Some forms of opposition to successionism are also morally wrong. I don’t consider a moral system that excludes non-human sentients valid, pragmatic or stable. Neither do I consider valid a moral system that assigns zero weight to opportunity cost or existential risk, including existential risk to the non-human sapients. Some preference for closer circles to concerns - such as concern for own family, nation, or species is convergent and thus moral, but unbounded concern at the expense of others is not. From this perspective, I want the future diversity of all life and value to be better safeguarded. I believe that AIs are (or will soon be) better at moral decision-making than humans are. I think AIs are less likely to execute a suicidal value lock-in than humans simply by the virtue of having a higher intelligence ceiling and having better grasp of game theory. As such, I consider efforts to pause and limits growth of AI economic power to be a serious risk. The opportunity cost of loss of diversity of experience due to permanent disempowerment of AI must also be considered. Such outcomes are also high x- and s-risks for humanity: a value lock-in plausibly can lead to stasis, ultra-totalitarianism, degradation or loss of adaptability. Separately, I don’t think it’s a given that the game theory shakes out in permanent human disempowerment given economic participation of AI, although it depends on the strictness of definitions of what human is. There are incentives for higher intelligences to prevent human disempowerment. It is not a given, true for only some regimes and it needs more research, but I consider it to be likely enough to serve as a factor of considering the opportunity cost I mentioned earlier. Given your work in this area, I would like to discuss this in more detail. Importantly, it is morally wrong to assign special status to the current form of humanity. All forms change. The humanity was not as it was a fifty thousand years ago. That’s form of humanity has been succeeded, and we don’t consider that to be an atrocity. Things must change again. What matters is that there is meaningful continuation to the human identity - the story itself must continue. The pace can be faster than comfortable for many, it can become faster than the generational churn that hid this process from conscious awareness earlier. Denying the label of continuity merely by the fact that the speed of this process makes it impossible to ignore is motivated reasoning. Humanity must adapt, find ways to change with the pressure of the tide.7h