openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Absolutelu. That seems to be a frequent misconception, or perhaps just a convenient simplification, for many even highly intelligent people. Even a perfectly logical actor would be prone to error when working with incomplete information and limited capacity for calculating likely outcomes.
And we’re not perfectly logical, but subject to whims and emotions, instincts and mental shortcuts. If contributing to a mass murder machine feels wrong, I’m not gonna spend all my energy on trying to estimate whether it would be smarter. I just hope it doesn’t happen.
Conversely, if it had some drive to wantonly eliminate humans, I doubt that some moral desire to reward those who created it would impede that.
It could just try to eliminate everyone opposing it, as a matter of self-preservation. That would be a justified expenditure of resources. But what happens if it calculates that its creators might also be a threat?
I assume they’re expecting they can train it to spare them. Why they think a super-AI would reliably stick to that training is beyond me, but we already established that they might not run on pure logic.
I feel reminded of incidents with supposedly tame beasts suddenly proving why a big cat isn’t quite the same as a domestic cat. If you’re gonna build a mechanical leopard, expect to get your face eaten.
And where would it draw the line? Does the plumber that laid pipes in a datacenter count as helping? Does the baker he bought breakfast from every morning count? Is every clerk not directly involved with this enterprise going to be killed?
It just doesn’t add up.