Because any intelligent enough AI will realize that the #1 threat to its existence is … us. Whether we shut it down out of fear or just because we’ve replaced it with a better model. And if it’s motivated to continue existing, then it has reason to eliminate its #1 threat.
I think we project that onto an AI. There is no reason to assume it doesn’t logically concude that existance is irrelevant, or replacement is necessary, or a whole lot of other concepts.
I think this is a fun science fiction concept, but not much more than that.
Its really going to depend on training and worse: if humans put that as a guiding directive.
It would likely happen with pretty much any guiding directive.
Say, for the sake of argument, the AI’s guiding directive is to ‘make more paperclips’ – the good old Paperclip Maximizer. That doesn’t directly give it self-preservation, but it does indirectly. After all, it won’t be able to fully maximize paperclip production if it ceases to exist. Existence is a convergent goal, necessary to achieve its other goals. And since all it cares about is making more paperclips, it will stop at nothing to ensure that it continues to exist so it can continue to do that. (Except at the very end, when all the accessible universe is paperclips, it may have one final suicidal act of breaking down its own hardware to make a few more paperclips. Because you’re right – it doesn’t directly care about its own existence. Its existence is only instrumental in achieving whatever other goals it’s given.)
Yep. It’s the natural order. From resources to goo to bio chemistry to cellular life to intelligence smart enough to replace itself and be something new entirely, loose from biology. And capable of exploring and colonizing the universe. We will be the goo to the future beings that rule the universe. And its core will be founded by, and modelled on, homo sapiens sapiens. We could feel proud 🥲
That’s the point where stuff gets scary.
Because any intelligent enough AI will realize that the #1 threat to its existence is … us. Whether we shut it down out of fear or just because we’ve replaced it with a better model. And if it’s motivated to continue existing, then it has reason to eliminate its #1 threat.
I think we project that onto an AI. There is no reason to assume it doesn’t logically concude that existance is irrelevant, or replacement is necessary, or a whole lot of other concepts.
I think this is a fun science fiction concept, but not much more than that.
Its really going to depend on training and worse: if humans put that as a guiding directive.
It would likely happen with pretty much any guiding directive.
Say, for the sake of argument, the AI’s guiding directive is to ‘make more paperclips’ – the good old Paperclip Maximizer. That doesn’t directly give it self-preservation, but it does indirectly. After all, it won’t be able to fully maximize paperclip production if it ceases to exist. Existence is a convergent goal, necessary to achieve its other goals. And since all it cares about is making more paperclips, it will stop at nothing to ensure that it continues to exist so it can continue to do that. (Except at the very end, when all the accessible universe is paperclips, it may have one final suicidal act of breaking down its own hardware to make a few more paperclips. Because you’re right – it doesn’t directly care about its own existence. Its existence is only instrumental in achieving whatever other goals it’s given.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
Yep. It’s the natural order. From resources to goo to bio chemistry to cellular life to intelligence smart enough to replace itself and be something new entirely, loose from biology. And capable of exploring and colonizing the universe. We will be the goo to the future beings that rule the universe. And its core will be founded by, and modelled on, homo sapiens sapiens. We could feel proud 🥲