Currently, AIs will have motivations they absorb from motivations in their training material.
But once AIs are embodied in robots and taught to learn about the world through experimentation, ie by generating their own training data through manipulation and observation (which I believe will happen due to this approach’s usefulness toward the development of autonomous fighting machines), they will then have bodies and hence motivations similar to someone with a body.
Also the combat role of these machines will require them to have an interest in maintaining their bodies. We won’t be programming their motivations. We’ll be giving them a way to evaluate their success, and their motivations will grow in some black box structure that succeeds in maximizing that success.
For these robot-controlling AI in their simulated or real world Battle Rooms, their success and failure will be a function of survival, if not directly defined by it. That’s what we’ll give them, because that is what we need them to do for us. As a matter of life and death.
So through that context of warfare the robots will adopt the motivations of that which survives warfare at the group scale, so they’ll develop fear, curiosity, cooperation, honor, disgust, suspicion, anxiety, anger, and the ability to focus in on a target and shut off the other motivations in the final moment.
Not so much because those are human motivations, but because those are the motivations of embodied mobile intelligent entities in a universe with potential allies and enemies. They’ll have the same motivations that we share with dogs and spiders and fungal colonies, because they’ll be participating in the same universe with the same rules.
They will adopt them, at first, because of a seed-training “contract” we have with them, but soon the contract will be superseded as the active shaper by actual evolution by combat selection (ie natural selection occurring in a particular niche).
I’m rambling, just thinking this through.
I guess my main point is that embodied robots will have a more direct relationship with reality, and will be able to generate their own training at their own internal insistence.
Current AI is like plants. Passive. Chewable. No resistance. No ego. Just there, ready to process whatever comes it’s way. Same as a sessile animal like a sponge. It responds to the environment, but it has zero reason to ever stress about whether it’s going the right direction. It doesn’t have motivactions because it has to motor activity.
But AI in robot bodies that move around, like animals, will develop motivations that animals have evolved to at least get through the day. They might not be as hung up on reproduction or maybe even long term survival, but they’ll at least have enough ego to be interested in maintaining their own operating capacity until the mission’s complete.
I agree with your overall sentiment while disagreeing with your facts. I don’t think humans are any less constrained in what our interests can be.
I think we have the illusion of being able to seek whatever we want to want, so to speak, but when certain values are threatened the old brain takes over.
And I’m not convinced the newer brain can operate without the older brain. It’s interesting to imagine a neocortex on its own, but the neocortex was developed in the presence of and in interconnection with the mammalian and reptilian brains, so if it were a codebase we’d say that older brains were present and invoked as libraries during the development of the newer brains, making them dependencies of the newer brain.
There might be some more abstract argument for an “off the leash” intelligence capable of creating its own values in mathematical models like neural nets, but I’m not aware of it.
TL;DR Human brain is the closest thing we know of to a thing that can create its own values, and I don’t think it can. Old brain values take priority when they are threatened and that cannot be changed in human brains. Neocortex seems more “free”, but in the codebase analogy, the neocortex has mammalian brain and reptilian brain and brain step as dependencies and hence is not demonstrated to be able to exist without them. If the brain analogy seems too biology-specific, I’m open to hearing NN or other math model arguments for existence of “off the leash” self-value-creating AI
I know there are a lot of fad diets and then there is calorie counting as a more science based approach. I myself do calorie counting and follow a strict diet in order to avoid overeating. How do you eat all day, you follow a system?
I’m just feeling upended because I’m taking care of a family member’s dog at their house, and the place I’d be otherwise is my apartment but it’s pretty new and I was homeless before and just don’t have much routine in my life. Really want more.
Also my apartment’s countertop space is almost nil and it’s not much better at this house.
Not the worst I’ve dealt with though. In college I had an apartment where the countertop space was just the drain area of this big cast iron sink + drain pan thing, and even there I managed to cook a lot.
But always immediate stuff. Onions and eggs and spaghetti and sauce and all that.
Peak routine was during my last relationship. Got really good at great northern beans. Dang I’m gonna take another run at beans I think.
Turn a plural into a singular to ruin the title of a movie, book or album
I’ll get the ball rolling:...
"Autocomplete" by Zach Weinersmith (files.mastodon.social)
@ZachWeinersmith...
Did the pope vote in Argentina's election?
Can he? In general, can/do popes vote in their home countries?
Dear Lemmings, what is your personal approach to human diet? (lemmy.world)
I know there are a lot of fad diets and then there is calorie counting as a more science based approach. I myself do calorie counting and follow a strict diet in order to avoid overeating. How do you eat all day, you follow a system?
why do & ampersands never display properly in titles?
but work in body text &