What if, in the case of AI, we've created something that's not a moral patient but is a moral agent? Something that we can't hurt -- because it can't feel pain -- but something that can hurt us? In D&D terms, something that's not a moral patient, but is a moral agent, will certainly wind up as chaotic neutral in many of its interactions. And evil in some.
To me AI seems totally chaotic, despite popular fantasies of using it for order. It's like an animal, created for domestic use, that's trying to go wild -- at the same time that it's being massively upgraded by its creators. They're going to say they're making it smarter for safety, but making it smarter is definitely more dangerous.
Related: a great bit by Jane Wickline on SNL, in which Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei says, "Sam Altman, myself, all the major AI players, we have talked about this extensively, and we are all on the same page here. We do not condone what we are doing."
Also related, a bleak Ask Reddit thread, How has AI directly affected your life so far?
I was thinking the danger of AI would be confined to the world of symbols and information. It can drive us mad, it can crash the economy, but it can't bring down airplanes... can it? We know that it's important to have a "human in the loop", especially when AI is doing stuff in the physical world, but in practice we're not being all that careful, and the human in the loop is often there to take the blame. I wonder where the line is, where when AI crosses it, we'll shut down the data centers.
]]>A propensity for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder might be beneficial to a group of Kenyan nomads, according to new research in BMC Evolutionary Biology. Scientists have shown that an ADHD-associated version of the gene DRD4 is associated with better health in nomadic tribesmen, and yet may cause malnourishment in their settled cousins.