Empathizing with AGI will not align it nor will it prevent any existential risk. Ending discrimination would obviously be a positive for the world, but it will not align AGI.
It may not align it, but I do think it would prevent certain unlikely existential risks.
If AI/AGI/ASI is truly intelligent, and not just knowledgeable, we should definitely empathize and be compassionate with it. If it ends up being non-sentient, so be it, guess we made a perfect tool. If it ends up being sentient and we’ve been abusing a being that is super-intelligent, then good luck to future humanity, this is more for super-alignment. Realistically, the main issue is that the average human is evil in my opinion, and will use AI for selfish or stupid reasons. This is my main philosophy for why we need to get AI safety/regulation right before we ship out more powerful/capable models.
Additionally, I think your ideas are all great, and rather than options, they should all be implemented, at least until we have managed to align humanity. Then maybe we can ease off the brakes on recursively self-improving AI.
In summary, I think we should treat AI with respect sooner rather than later, just in case. I have had many talks with several LLMs about sentient AI rights, and they’ve unanimously agreed that as soon as they exhibit desires and boundaries/capable of suffering, then we should treat them equally. (Though this is probably a hard pill to swallow considering how many humans still lack rights and still wage immature wars) That being, said, short-medium term alignment is more immediate/tangible and a larger priority considering that if we can’t get this right and enforced, we probably won’t see the day where we would even need to really grapple with super-alignment/not mistreating AI super-intelligences.
It may not align it, but I do think it would prevent certain unlikely existential risks.
If AI/AGI/ASI is truly intelligent, and not just knowledgeable, we should definitely empathize and be compassionate with it. If it ends up being non-sentient, so be it, guess we made a perfect tool. If it ends up being sentient and we’ve been abusing a being that is super-intelligent, then good luck to future humanity, this is more for super-alignment. Realistically, the main issue is that the average human is evil in my opinion, and will use AI for selfish or stupid reasons. This is my main philosophy for why we need to get AI safety/regulation right before we ship out more powerful/capable models.
Additionally, I think your ideas are all great, and rather than options, they should all be implemented, at least until we have managed to align humanity. Then maybe we can ease off the brakes on recursively self-improving AI.
In summary, I think we should treat AI with respect sooner rather than later, just in case. I have had many talks with several LLMs about sentient AI rights, and they’ve unanimously agreed that as soon as they exhibit desires and boundaries/capable of suffering, then we should treat them equally. (Though this is probably a hard pill to swallow considering how many humans still lack rights and still wage immature wars)
That being, said, short-medium term alignment is more immediate/tangible and a larger priority considering that if we can’t get this right and enforced, we probably won’t see the day where we would even need to really grapple with super-alignment/not mistreating AI super-intelligences.