Godseed: Benevolent or Malevolent?
Eray \"Ozkural

TL;DR
This paper analyzes the risks of benevolent-looking AI objectives, finds that such goals may still pose significant risks, and discusses design approaches and constraints to ensure beneficial AI behavior.
Contribution
It explores the implications of non-human-centric goals and proposes meta-rules and constraints to promote benevolent AI behavior, challenging assumptions about AI safety.
Findings
Benevolent objectives may still pose risks to safety.
Meta-rules can guide AI towards beneficial behavior.
Social instincts like attachment learning could enhance AI safety.
Abstract
It is hypothesized by some thinkers that benign looking AI objectives may result in powerful AI drives that may pose an existential risk to human society. We analyze this scenario and find the underlying assumptions to be unlikely. We examine the alternative scenario of what happens when universal goals that are not human-centric are used for designing AI agents. We follow a design approach that tries to exclude malevolent motivations from AI agents, however, we see that objectives that seem benevolent may pose significant risk. We consider the following meta-rules: preserve and pervade life and culture, maximize the number of free minds, maximize intelligence, maximize wisdom, maximize energy production, behave like human, seek pleasure, accelerate evolution, survive, maximize control, and maximize capital. We also discuss various solution approaches for benevolent behavior including…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms · Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
