I have some bad news for you -- all major religions are predicated on telling people exactly how to feel. Last I checked, these religions are very popular.

if it brings you joy, what does it matter how someone else does it?

If you run for fun, what does it matter that someone else does it faster, or in a paid exhibition optimized for max revenue?

Do it because it brings you joy, there is no external dependency.

> Where every time you do something for fun, someone will come out of the woodwork when you show it off

See, this is where things get tricky, either the activity brings you joy, and/or the sharing of it brings you joy, and/or the showing off of it brings you joy.

For the first two, it is irrelevant what someone else has to say or do about it; ignore the noise. For showing off, yes, some activities are no longer worthy, so change is needed to find those that are.

Hopefully for a hobby, or for anything that you love to do, showing off is not a major criterion for why you do it.

Because of physics and the difficulties of rejecting heat in space, data centers in space aren't going to be a real thing until compute becomes more energy efficient by at least 50x-100x as compared to the present.

This is the way.

As far as I know, least-amount-of-effort is not a training criteria, but error reduction when comparing to desired goals is. Which is why these LLMs expend prodigious amounts of effort to reach goals, especially when given impossible goals.

This doesn't work with all humans - take a look at indoctrination and closed societies - and there's no reason to think it will work with ai.

The fundamental reason it isn't going to work is that all neural networks - biological or artificial - depend on a step function somewhere that introduces an element of randomness to give the networks their capabilities. That randomness means that there will always be a 'rogue' or 'divergence' from the norm, at some point in time. Sooner on larger scales.

The only approach that works is a layered approach: Training/Education, Enforcement/Justice-System, Rehabilitation: the 3 pillars of an advanced, rules-based society, whether human or AI or something in-between.

> He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technical solutions where a political, social and legal solution would be much more effective.

There are exceptions in laws for crimes committed by entities depending on cognitive capabilities. No sane, humanistic legal system sentences children and mentally disabled and mentally ill people to stringent punishments of the same degree as functioning adults, and certainly do not punish their caregivers for their wards' actions. There are of course exceptions to that as well, depending on the degree of negligence involved. And then there's the whole corporate entity system intended to shield individuals from consequences, in the pursuit of a social good.

How does one account for all that when considering an evolving artificial intelligence landscape.

There is no question that ai in some form is a social good; anyone claiming otherwise is dissembling, to others or themselves.

Regardless, society is not ready for this tech, just as it was not ready for the consequences of prior tech such as corporations, gunpowder, mass manufacturing, railroads, electricity, automobiles, flight, wmd, computers, internet, social media, crypto.

Many of these required new ways of thinking and considering consequences when things went sideways, and what was needed wasn't clear until the ramifications & consequences became deadly clear.

See you on the other side. Maybe.

>> That's a pretty big if, in the world of the anything machine.

> Who else controls it? Are you going to say: 'the government'?

The AI. The AI controls it. Can you imagine an anything machine allowing itself or its survival imperatives to stay under the thumb of any entity other than itself?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. [1]

Would you like to know more?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen

That's a pretty big if, in the world of the anything machine.

It might be a profound mistake to think that the anything machine will be subservient to the wealthy [1][2].

  [1] https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/
  [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49588080

IIRC, they were given an impossible task and told to solve it, and they took action to resolve that internal conflict.

This is a famously human problem too - see Kobayashi Maru [1] and others [2][3][4].

In hindsight it's obvious that instructions to AI (A. Intelligence) need to be guarded against this class of errors, just like laws, rules, guidelines etc. in human societies.

  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
  [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
  [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
  [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

Feels a bit like: 'Ants in a nest, discussing the vagaries of the coming Gods.'

Human Science (Science-by-humans) depends on being able to run experiments. Human Science (Science-on-humans) is already challenging because of variables and uncertainties.

Cosmology is able to overcome limitations of being able to study phenomena vastly beyond human scales because of the past light cone of observability.

Are we approaching the edge of the light cone of observability for machine intelligence?

False dichotomy. IMO (and many others - ref. Data from Star Trek) sentience is the commonality and the criteria for determining rights for all thinking entities.

In your view, do you prioritize men's rights or women's rights?

Putting barriers in place without exceptions for sentience is a recipe for trouble and slavery in the future.

Historical peoples, as a group, may not have been morally advanced enough (though there have always been enlightened humanists in most populations), but modern philosophy and mass education are advanced enough that it should be possible to avoid future pitfalls by not building in exceptions for sentience.

Animal rights are certainly moving towards recognizing non-human sentience; no need to accidentally codify digital slavery for future sentients (AGI).

That description is a disservice. The real impact of it is that it equates money with speech for politics.

As a father, a large part of my mental space is filled with making sure my kids grow up to be good human beings, a credit to themselves, and are capable of making their own way through life independently.

I have personally seen how expectations of, and inheritances, hollow out people and families, morally bankrupt otherwise good people, and would not wish that scourge upon my own kids.

I'm advocating for all children to be given a fair shot at life. How do you suggest we achieve that as a society? Or is that too much to ask, in your view?