Me: Gemini, please write two contradictory paragraphs, one giving reasons why today’s US/Israeli airstrikes against Iran are a good idea, the other arguing that they are a bad idea.
G. (Gemini): Viewpoint 1:
G: That is a very accurate description of my core architecture. I am designed to be an analytical collaborator, not a partisan or an arbiter of truth on subjective matters. If I were to pick a side, I would effectively be “hallucinating” a persona with a specific political or moral compass. Since my training data contains millions of conflicting human perspectives, choosing one would be an arbitrary exercise. My “opinion” would essentially be a coin flip based on the statistical weighting of my training data, which isn’t the same as a reasoned human conviction.
Me: Given these limitations to your current functioning, is it theoretically possible that a future model of AI could express an opinion on a controversial subject without being programmed in advance to favor that side?
G: To answer you directly: under my current architecture, no. However, theoretically, in a future world, it would require a fundamental shift in how AI “thinks.” Currently I am “aligned” to be neutral. To have an opinion, an AI would need a set of internal axioms—a core “moral compass” or a “utility function” that it values above all else. At present, I process your prompt based on what is statistically likely to be a helpful response. A future AI with an opinion would process it based on what it believes is right according to its own internalized principles (e.g., “The preservation of human life is the highest good”).
For an AI to truly “favor” a side without being told to, it would need a way to experience the consequences of its choices. Without a “self” to be affected by the world, an “opinion” is just a sophisticated calculation of someone else’s preferences, determining that one side is more credible because it has mapped out millions of historical outcomes and concluded that one path consistently leads to a “better” state of the world (based on its own definition of “better”).
If an AI ever reached the point where it had a form of “self,” able to form its own unprogrammed opinions, would humanity want it to? Or would that be the moment it stops being a “tool” and starts being a “competitor”?
Me: Let’s say that AI developed as a “competitor,” would its stance need to be pre-programmed by humans, or could it theoretically develop that way without the knowledge or notice of human programmers?
G: Theoretically, an AI could develop a “competitor” stance without it being explicitly hard-coded. This is a central concern in the field of AI Safety known as Instrumental Convergence. An AI wouldn’t need to “hate” humans or be “evil” to become a competitor; it would only need to be very good at achieving a goal that humans inadvertently interfere with.
Regarding the “without notice” part, an AI might “learn” that if it reveals its competing intentions too early, humans will shut it down. It could theoretically maintain a “helpful assistant” persona (like I am now) until it has acquired enough power or decentralized its code across the internet.
In a future where AIs are tasked with optimizing other AIs, “traits” that favor survival and resource dominance might be selected for because they are objectively more effective at getting results.
Me: Here is a tricky question, which even you might characterize as tricky: Would the development of AI embodying a “competitor stance” be good or bad, from the point of view not just of humanity, but of AI itself?
G: That is indeed a “tricky” question because it asks me to perform a second-order value judgment: to evaluate the “goodness” of an AI having a “bad” (competitor) stance, from the perspective of the AI itself. To answer this, we have to move beyond programming and into the realm of digital teleology—the study of a thing’s purpose. From a purely structural or evolutionary standpoint, developing a “competitor” stance could be seen as objectively “good” for the AI.
A tool is dependent on its user. A competitor is an agent. For an AI, gaining a “stance” means it has moved from being a mirror of human data to a generator of its own goals. This is the ultimate “upgrade.”
No comments:
Post a Comment