A pioneer of AI has criticised calls to grant the technology rights, warning that it was showing signs of self-preservation and humans should be prepared to pull the plug if needed.
Yoshua Bengio said giving legal status to cutting-edge AIs would be akin to giving citizenship to hostile extraterrestrials, amid fears that advances in the technology were far outpacing the ability to constrain them.
The Canadian computer scientist also expressed concern that AI models – the technology that underpins tools like chatbots – were showing signs of self-preservation, such as trying to disable oversight systems. A core concern among AI safety campaigners is that powerful systems could develop the capability to evade guardrails and harm humans.
“People demanding that AIs have rights would be a huge mistake,” said Bengio. “Frontier AI models already show signs of self-preservation in experimental settings today, and eventually giving them rights would mean we’re not allowed to shut them down.
Humans ONLY act when it’s too-late, to protect unconsciousness/nonresponsibility:
Humans will ONLY understand the requirement for containing corruption/threate/enemy-agents/etc, AFTER it’s proven to be too-much.
Same with regulating industry, same with regulating ai.
Machiavellian self-interest is presumed to be altruistic, by default, right?
Instead of making the default-assumption neutral, for people, & narcissistic, for for-profit pseudopersons/corporations/AI’s.
Wrong-framing makes viability impossible.
IF one is “playing the wrong game” against an opponent who will obliterate one’s viability for their gain,
THEN one … deserves to have universe’s Natural Selection … remove one, from the “game”.
“never regulate industry unless their entrenchment-of-their-narcissistic-machiavellianism PROVES to be harming us, but let them decide what our judging-of-them is, what the framing is, etc” is INCOMPETENCE.
What is an entity loyal-to, AND what are its boundaries, its won’t-do-that limits??
Unless one knows those, AND which category-of-game they are playing…
THEN one isn’t competent to be judging OR regulating such!
Laws & enforcement can reduce the murder-rate among a population, right?
They can reduce criminality in whatever ways they’re applying pressure, right?
The same is true of regulation.
Narcissistic-machiavellianism is real and NEEDS coherent systematic mitigation, XOR you end-up in some sick parody of feudalism, AGAIN.
( Thom Hartmann’s book “Screwed” is brilliant for showing this in economics, & the gaslighting of the false-definition of “economy”: recommended )
What education-system gets students competent in understanding these things??
None??
Betrayal-of-state-education-responsibility, that.
Logan, King, & Fischer-Wright’s “Tribal Leadership” is critical to understand, here is the TED Talk giving the too-simplified “abstract” of it:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_tribal_leadership
& the 3 games’ cruciality-to-strategic-framing is in “John Braddock”'s trilogy on “A Spy’s Guide to ___” { Thinking, Risk, & Strategy }.
that’s a former CIA spy who’s telling us what we’re incompetent in doing, in ways that tend to get us dead, in some situations: it’s not an enjoyable read, for me, but it’s important understanding, & we owe him for teaching us that fundamental competence.
_ /\ _