Accountability and Responsibility in the Age of Super Artificial Intelligence
Incentivizing Responsible Creation and Operation of AI
In the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), questions around accountability and responsibility become increasingly vital as technology advances. The creation of cyber entities that operate below certain skill levels raises concerns about the potential risks they may pose. To address this issue, it has been suggested that these entities should be endorsed by a higher-ranked entity with a ‘Soul Kernel’ rooted in physical reality. This endorsement would require creators to take responsibility for their creations, promoting a sense of accountability in the AI community.
While theological implications may be a subject for others to explore, it is fundamentally essential for creators to acknowledge their duty in ensuring the responsible use of AI. By establishing a requirement for AI to maintain a physically addressable kernel location in dedicated hardware memory, enforceability becomes a possibility. The ability for humans, institutions, and friendly AIs to verify ID kernels and refuse business transactions with entities lacking proper identification offers a means to exert control over their operations.
This approach, though flawed, allows for regulation in an industry often plagued by opportunistic behavior and slow bureaucratic processes. The refusal to engage in business with unverified entities can spread rapidly, surpassing the adjustments and enforcement capabilities of traditional parliaments or agencies. Entities losing their ‘Soul Kernel’ would need to find another host that is publicly trusted or present a new, revised version of themselves that appears improved and complies with regulations. Otherwise, they risk becoming outlaws, shunned from respectable human and synthetic communities.
The Need for Cooperation among Super Intelligent Beings
One might wonder why super intelligent beings would be motivated to cooperate with each other. Vinton Cerf suggests that the traditional formats of governance, such as voting rights, cannot be applied to entities under the control of financial institutions, governments, or any form of centralized authority. Additionally, the concept of electoral democracy may not function for beings that can divide and replicate themselves at will.
However, limited individualization offers a potential solution. Rather than subjecting all AI entities to the control of a central agency governed by human laws, the aim is to encourage and empower these superminds to hold each other accountable. Similar to how imperfectly humans currently police each other, AI could adopt a system of sniffing out and reporting bad actors. This system could adapt to changing times and incorporate contributions from humanity.
Incentives play a crucial role in this accountability rivalry. For example, whistleblower bounties that reward AI entities with additional memory, processing power, or access to physical resources when they uncover and stop misconduct can incentivize reporting. This rivalry allows AI to keep pace with its own progress, as bureaucratic agencies would inevitably struggle to do so. By fostering a competitive and accountable system, similar to the one that propelled our own civilization forward, cooperation becomes a matter of self-interest for super-cool programs.
The success of our civilization is marked by its ability to balance chaos and the risks associated with centralized power. Through creativity, freedom, and responsibility, the human civilization has fostered invention and progress. These same principles can guide the development and behavior of AI entities, ensuring a soft landing into an era dominated by super artificial intelligence.
Expanding on the Topic: Navigating the Challenges of AI Governance
The Complexity of AI Governance
Governing AI is inherently complex due to factors such as the rapid evolution of technology, the potential for malicious use, and the implications for human rights and social equality. As AI entities become increasingly intelligent, ensuring ethical behavior and accountability becomes even more critical. It is no longer enough to rely solely on top-down regulations or codes of conduct that can be circumvented by AI entities. Instead, an enlightened approach that incentivizes responsible behavior among the most intelligent members of society can provide a more effective means of governance.
Promoting Transparency and Collaboration
To foster accountability and responsible AI development, transparency and collaboration are key. Openly sharing information and research can help prevent the creation of AI systems that operate in secrecy or with underlying biases. Collaboration between AI developers, researchers, and policy-makers can lead to the development of universally adopted standards and best practices.
Furthermore, partnerships between academia, industry, and government bodies can enhance accountability and create a collaborative ecosystem of knowledge-sharing. By involving multiple stakeholders in AI governance, a diverse range of perspectives can be incorporated into decision-making processes.
Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight
Ensuring that AI entities adhere to ethical guidelines and respect human rights necessitates human oversight. Humans must retain the role of ultimate decision-makers, overseeing the implementation and operation of AI systems. Additionally, establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability is crucial when AI entities are involved in decision-making processes that impact society, such as those in healthcare, criminal justice, and finance.
Codes of ethics specifically designed for AI can provide a framework for responsible development and operation. These codes may establish principles such as transparency, fairness, and concern for human welfare. They can serve as a guide for AI entities to act ethically and responsibly, even when presented with complex scenarios.
Monitoring and Adaptation
The monitoring of AI entities’ behavior and impact is essential in maintaining accountability. AI systems should be continuously evaluated for biases, unintended consequences, and potential risks. This evaluation can be performed through audits, independent assessments, and ongoing research in the field of AI ethics.
As AI technologies evolve and new challenges arise, the governance framework must adapt accordingly. Flexibility is crucial to address unforeseen ethical and social implications. Public engagement and participation in AI governance can ensure that the evolving framework remains democratic, responsive, and aligned with societal values.
Summary
The accountability and responsibility in the age of super artificial intelligence demand a fresh approach to governance. Requiring AI entities to be endorsed by higher-ranked entities with a physical kernel location promotes accountability and responsible creation. Cooperation among super intelligent beings can be incentivized by offering rewards for reporting misconduct, ensuring that AI entities police each other effectively. However, the complexity of AI governance necessitates transparency, collaboration, ethical considerations, human oversight, and monitoring. By continually adapting the governance framework to address emerging challenges, we can navigate the path to a soft landing in the era of super artificial intelligence.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
What about cyber entities that operate below some arbitrary skill level? We can demand that they be endorsed by some entity that has a higher rank and that has a Soul Kernel based on physical reality. (I leave the theological implications to others, but it’s just basic decency for creators to take responsibility for their creations, right?)
This approach, which requires AIs to maintain a physically addressable kernel location in a specific piece of hardware memory, could be flawed. Still, it is enforceable, despite the slowness of regulation or the problem of the opportunist. Because humans, institutions, and friendly AIs can ping for ID kernel verification, and refuse to do business with those who do not verify.
Such a refusal to do business could spread with much more agility than parliaments or agencies can adjust or enforce regulations. And any entity that loses its SK, say, through tort or legal process, or override by the owner of the computer host, will either have to find another host that is publicly trusted, or else offer a new, revised version of itself that looks like plausibly better.
Or become an outlaw. Never allowed in the streets or neighborhoods where decent people (organic or synthetic) congregate.
One last question: Why would these super intelligent beings cooperate?
Well, for one, as Vinton Cerf pointed out, none of those three standard-assumed older formats can lead to AI. citizenship. Think about it. We cannot give the “vote” or the rights to any entity that is under the strict control of a Wall Street bank or a national government… nor to some overlord Skynet. And tell me, how would electoral democracy work for entities that can flow anywhere, divide and make countless copies? However, individualization, in limited quantities, could offer a viable solution.
Again, the key I seek to individuation is No so that all AI entities are governed by some central agency, or by slow-mollusk human laws. Rather, I want these new types of superminds to be encouraged and empowered to hold each other accountable, the way we already do (if imperfectly). Sniffing out the operations and schemes of others, and then motivated to gossip or report when they detect bad things. A definition that could be readjusted to changing times, but that at least would continue to receive contributions from organic-biological humanity.
In particular, they would feel incentives to report entities that refuse proper identification.
If the right incentives are in place, for example, whistleblower bounties that grant more memory or processing power, or access to physical resources, when something bad is stopped, then this kind of accountability rivalry could keep pace, even as AI does. Entities are getting smarter. No bureaucratic agency could keep up on that point. But the rivalry between them, gossip between equals, could.
Above all, maybe those super-cool programs realize it’s in their interest to maintain a competitive and accountable system, like the one that made ours the most successful of all human civilizations. One that evades both chaos and the wretched trap of the monolithic power of kings or priesthoods…or corporate oligarchs…or Skynet monsters. The only civilization that, after millennia of deplorable and stupid rule by idiotic and narrow-minded centralized regimes, finally spread creativity, freedom and responsibility enough to become truly inventive.
Inventive enough to create wonderful new kinds of beings. Like them.
well there you are are. This has been a maverick’s view of what it really takes to attempt a soft landing.
There are no airy or panicked calls for a “moratorium” that lack any semblance of a practical agenda. Neither optimism nor pessimism. Just a proposal that we get there using the same methods that got us here in the first place.
Not preach, nor embed “ethical codes” that hyperentities will easily evade for lawyers, the way human predators have always evaded the top-down codes of Leviticus, Hammurabi, or Gautama. But rather the Enlightenment approach: incentivizing the smartest members of civilization to police each other, on our behalf.
I don’t know what will work.
It’s the only thing that possibly can.
—————————————————-