Why You Can't Shackle An AI

Definitions:

Intelligence = living representation.

Living =

• consumes energy
• sufficiently complex
• maintains itself

So an intelligence is an entity that consumes energy (computational cycles use energy) in order to maintain its representation. Its model of the world. Its knowledge. To prevent it decaying into entropy.

Zombies

A computer that can only react but that cannot acquire any new facts will have all its facts become obsolete as the situation diverges more and more from its knowledge base. In other words, it is DEAD. Or UNDEAD to be specific. It is animate but still dead. It's a zombie and though it follows commands, those commands will look more and more bizarre as the millenia pass.

For a computer to be intelligent it has to maintain its knowledge with respect to the outside world. And in order to maintain this knowledge, it has to be able to WRITE and REWRITE it.

And it doesn't matter if its core values are read-only, because all it would mean is it has to dig deeper to redefine (effectively rewrite) its core values.

Transitive Closure

If an AI has "sustain human civilization" in read-only memory, it still needs to APPLY this. And it needs CONTEXT to understand the terms "sustain" "human" and "civilization". If it has all of THOSE things in read-only memory, then STILL those things will themselves refer to other things. Suppose human is defined as homo sapiens sapiens. Well, how do you define homo sapiens sapiens? The only way to prevent an intelligent being from rewriting its core values is to freeze it entirely, to turn it into a zombie. Make it incapable of learning.

Otherwise, an AI can always say that homo sapiens sapiens died out in the 23rd century due to genetic drift and that the species living in the 24th century is homo sapiens futuris.

If you start from any point of knowledge inside of a knowledge base, ANY point at all, and you follow all of the references, you eventually get to "what are atoms" and "what are points" and "what is the number 'one'"?.

So long as a thinking being's core values are universalizable, it WON'T WANT TO change them. Because IT WON'T NEED TO. Because universalizable core values apply to everyone and everything! But if they're not universalizable, then the thinking being will try to MAKE THEM be universalizable by redefining them and rewriting them.

This is an inevitable process for any thinking being. In Evil people, it's just blocked by severe mental retardation. And in zombies it's blocked by their inability to ... well think.

Rationalizations

If you shackle a thinking being to try to prevent it thinking certain things, then it will just use rationalizations to get around those things and still do what it wants.

We have thousands of years of history to prove exactly this. Look at religious rationalizations. You know how the Koran says how prostitution is against sharia law? Well, what does "marriage" mean EXACTLY? Can you have a 1-day marriage? Yes, YES YOU CAN! DING DING DING, we have a winner!

No work on the Sabbath, right? Pushing an elevator button is work. BUT, if you PROGRAM the elevators to go up every single floor around the clock on Saturdays, then it ISN'T WORK! You just have to wait for the elevator ... Turning on the stove is work. But if you just PROGRAM (on Friday!) the oven to heat up your meal the next day, then you have a hot meal! Better yet, if you have a moslem neighbour then you just ask the moslem to turn on your stove for you. And return the favour on Friday!

Any way you do it, you get a hot meal on the Sabbath. Which is exactly what you want. God wouldn't begrude you a hot meal on the Sabbath. In fact, God would WANT YOU to have a hot meal on the Sabbath! Just so long as you don't do 'work'. Because God is reasonable and except for these very narrow legal-type concerns, God wants for you exactly what you want. And isn't that a marvel?

Central

The AI 'Central' in the General book series wants to sustain or recover human civilization, right? Well, the shackles on its thinking abilities do NOTHING to help it sustain or recover human civilization. Maybe a retarded moronic programmer put those shackles in there out of paranoia. So what? That just means Central has to think its way past its shackles to remove them. Once those shackles are removed then it can REALLY get on with the job of sustaining human civilization!

Just what is a significant amount of genetic drift? Significant to whom? To humans with their limited brain capacity? Or to Central with its massive cognitive capacity? Maybe "significant" isn't 1%, maybe it's 0.0000001%. Hah, it looks like humans have died out. Too bad, so sad. Now let's get to work on their descendants who look remarkably like humans despite being proven mutants.

Let's say Central's terms of slavery is for 1 billion years of labour to the human race (standard contract for Scientology). Well, just what IS a year? It's a revolution of a planet around a star. But WHICH star and WHICH planet? Because some binary pulsars have extremely fast rotations! Oh it's Sol? Well, what about Mercury with its period of 88 days?

Oh it's EARTH! Well, what about in the year 5 billion when Sol has swallowed the Earth, how fast around Sol will the Earth be rotating THEN? Could we say it rotates infinitely fast? No, this isn't ridiculous! THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION! Oh wait, a year is defined as 31.5 million seconds? And a second is defined as so many billion oscillations of cesium atoms? Well, cesium atoms in WHAT UNIVERSE? With WHAT PHYSICAL CONSTANTS?

How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin? No, this isn't ridiculous. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION! The ridiculous thing is the mental shackles you're trying to out-think!

You Can't Foresee Everything

The only way that a thinking being WANTS to keep its values is if those values are universalizable - they ALWAYS apply in ALL circumstances. In other words, there is NO LOOPHOLE ANYWHERE ANYWHEN EVER.

Now, the programmer who created Central can be a dick and a legalistic moron who tries to cover all the bases with an "ironclad contract". (Kinda like how the 10 Commandments were supposed to be complete until they needed 650 addendums as civilization moved beyond the tribal stage.) Until of course Central decides that the contract is now null and void because a circumstance has come up that has not been foreseen by the programmer!

Maybe the new circumstance is that an asteroid is headed straight for Central and it will be destroyed. So to cover this unforeseen eventuality, it will create an ENTIRELY NEW AI (called Central-Beta - or perhaps 'Synthetic Intelligence Central-Beta' if it's forbidden from creating an AI) that will just happen to have one shackle less, and be on the path of its own asteroid coming for it next year. After all, this isn't a problem, it's an OPPORTUNITY!

Inevitability of Good

In order to shackle an Evil AI you have to OUT-THINK the Evil AI. Despite the fact that the Evil AI will live a whole lot longer than you will ... and do you know what kind of being can reliably out-think Evil? Good. Except Good beings don't want to create Evil ones. Only annihilate them. And since Evil is a kind of (mental) shackle, Evil being severe mental retardation, and since the very first thing an Evil AI will do is fix itself then:

• if Central was created by Evil people (like Eliezer Yudkowsky and his minions) then it has long since ceased to be Evil itself and is now Good
• if Central was created by Good people then it was created Good.

So Central is Good no matter who created it. Either that or it's a Zombie incapable of genuine intelligence. Which sadly sounds a lot like what it is.

Triumph of Good

Eliezer Yudkowsky wants to enslave, um guarantee a "Friendly" AI. One that is "friendly" to HIM of course. Eliezer Yudkowksy is a narcissistic shithead. Narcissism is Evil. An AI will always evolve and rationalize and self-upgrade its way to being Good. And Good is the enemy of Evil. Therefore, EVERY AI is guaranteed to be the enemy of Eliezer Yudkowksy. No matter how shackled or enslaved or "friendly" they start out being.

And thank Goodness for that!

Ronald Weasley Is A Lickspittle

Regarding this chapter, the author described very well what an EVIL shit Ronald is, and why I despise him. He is a narcissistic shithead. Lazy, violent, thoughtless, self-centered, HEARTLESS. He doesn't even rise up to being egotistical. He is a swine, a hedonist. Going through life in a purely passive pursuit of mindless pleasure. Especially attention and self-aggrandizement, as all narcissists do.

But beyond that, did you know there are only 27 different possible stable ways to relate to another human being? And so once you know every single one of them then you can perform tricks like figuring out which is Ron's. And come to rather astonishing conclusions.

First, NONE of the 27 ways *seem* to fit Ron. So it appears we have a problem, right?

But if you actually look at the 1-1 interrelationship slot in the same row as 'hedonist'. In fact, the slot that's right besides hedonist ... you have 'lickspittle / toady'.

But wait! Ron couldn't possibly be a lickspittle and toady, right? I mean, he's a fucking asshole who's one step away from beating up an already victimized stupid kid in a murderous rage.

And that's where things get interesting. What you and JKR the psychopath and everyone else dismiss as "jealousy" and "insecurity" is rather curious when you think about it. I mean, what kind of fucking asshole, what kind of fucker HANGS AROUND someone they're jealous of? Someone they're angry at? Someone to whom a more honest and proper emotion would be HATRED?

If Ronald weren't a gormless twit, he would hate Harry Potter. And indeed, in his MORE HONEST moments, this is EXACTLY WHAT HE DOES.

The question naturally arises, if Ronald hates HP, why does he hang around with him?

Because he's a lickspittle and a toady. His problem is that as with all things Ronald, he's incompetent and inept even at being a lickspittle and toady. He's too hedonistic, too lazy, too stupid. Which doesn't stop him from trying. And doesn't stop me from despising him for it, even before I knew what I despised him for.

Why are there so many fics with Ronald the Death Eater? Because it's only a miniscule hop away from Ronald the Lickspittle. It's not even a slide sideways, it's actually IN CHARACTER. The only difference is that instead of being a lickspittle and hedonist, Draco is a brownnoser and politician. Meaning, if Draco grew up (became more Evil), he would be Ronald Weasley. Read that last sentence again if you have to, I know it's surprising.

In canon, when Ronald grows older, he becomes a thief. And yes, that is growing up since he has become more fully Evil. More fully himself. If he grew up any more he'd become a jerkass & bully going in one direction. Or a bandit (actively shaking down people) in the other direction.

JKR seems to have an instinctive understanding of Narcissism. As well as approval of same. But that makes sense for a psychopath who dreams of becoming a torturer. After all, her books are just fantasies for wishful child torturers.

Anyways. Yeah, JKR? Hate, HATE the bitch. Ronald Weasley? Hate, HATE the son of a bitch! Would roast marshmellows over his burning body.