Published on August 27, 2024 5:58 PM GMT
It seems to me that when normal people are concerned about AI destroying their life, they are mostly worried about technological unemployment, whereas rationalists think that it is a bigger risk that the AI might murder us all, and that automation gives humans more wealth and free time and is therefore good.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the rationalist position here. If we had a plan for how to use AI to create a utopia where humanity could thrive, I'd be all for it. We have problems (like death) that we are quite far from solving, and which it seems like a superintelligence could in principle quickly solve.
But this requires value alignment: we need to be quite careful what we mean by concepts like "humanity", "thrive", etc., so the AI can explicitly maintain good conditions. What kinds of humans do we want, and what kinds of thriving should they have? This needs to be explicitly planned by any agent which solves this task.
Our current society doesn't say "humans should thrive", it says "professional humans should thrive"; certain alternative types of humans like thieves are explicitly suppressed, and other types of humans like beggars are not exactly encouraged. This is of course not an accident: professionals produce value, which is what allows society to exist in the first place. But with technological unemployment, we decouple professional humans from value production, undermining the current society's priority of human welfare.
This loss is what causes existential risk. If humanity was indefinitely competitive in most tasks, the AIs would want to trade with us or enslave us instead of murdering us or letting us starve to death. Even if we manage to figure out how to value-align AIs, this loss leads to major questions about what to value-align the AIs to, since e.g. if we value human capabilities, the fact that those capabilities become uncompetitive likely means that they will diminish to the point of being vestigial.
It's unclear how to solve this problem. Eliezer's original suggestion was to keep humans more capable than AIs by increasing the capabilities of humans. Yet even increasing the capabilities of humanity is difficult, let alone keeping up with technological development. Robin Hanson suggests that humanity should just sit back and live off our wealth as we got replaced. I guess that's the path we're currently on, but it is really dubious to me whether we'll be able to keep that wealth, and whether the society that replaces us will have any moral worth. Either way, these questions are nearly impossible to separate from the question of, what kinds of production will be performed in the future?
Discuss
