On selling versions of different AGIs to others, something that does not come up in the text but does in the above paragraphs:
An AGI is a weaponizable technology. Technology capable of running an instance of the code should not be for sale any more than you can buy a tank or an ICBM-it only gets done by international agreement.
Many AGI components should not be for sale individually, just as you cannot buy some parts of a tank, and access to them could be restricted even before they are ever assembled into an AGI or during the time when we only believe they might end up being part of one solution pathway.
Even a remote-controlled minivan is something that would require heavy licensing and ownership restrictions. Measures will be taken so that the owners of self-driving cars have great difficulty in reprogramming the car’s control systems.
If we develop an early AI communicating in a slightly stilted way, but with sufficient reasoning and NLP skills to largely replace teachers, accountants, stockbrokers or journalists, then leave it is a shared service like a search engine whose code we never see.
If AGI is used to tell self-driving cars where to drive and robots what to build as part of a master strategy to generate material abundance, maybe the cars can contain enough AI to navigate and pick up cargo, but bundling a complete AGI inside of a device like a car or a robot seems pretty hazardous.
Along with AI containment, the question of which devices get how much reasoning power also needs an answer. One AGI per car or per robot, like we see in sci fi sometimes, seems like a very wrong idea.
However, a singleton with a decisive strategic advantage does not rule out devices which are running separate AGIs. If devices are physically distant, then the speed of light may require such configurations.
Elements of these considerations need additional thought...
On selling versions of different AGIs to others, something that does not come up in the text but does in the above paragraphs:
An AGI is a weaponizable technology. Technology capable of running an instance of the code should not be for sale any more than you can buy a tank or an ICBM-it only gets done by international agreement.
Many AGI components should not be for sale individually, just as you cannot buy some parts of a tank, and access to them could be restricted even before they are ever assembled into an AGI or during the time when we only believe they might end up being part of one solution pathway.
Even a remote-controlled minivan is something that would require heavy licensing and ownership restrictions. Measures will be taken so that the owners of self-driving cars have great difficulty in reprogramming the car’s control systems.
If we develop an early AI communicating in a slightly stilted way, but with sufficient reasoning and NLP skills to largely replace teachers, accountants, stockbrokers or journalists, then leave it is a shared service like a search engine whose code we never see.
If AGI is used to tell self-driving cars where to drive and robots what to build as part of a master strategy to generate material abundance, maybe the cars can contain enough AI to navigate and pick up cargo, but bundling a complete AGI inside of a device like a car or a robot seems pretty hazardous.
Along with AI containment, the question of which devices get how much reasoning power also needs an answer. One AGI per car or per robot, like we see in sci fi sometimes, seems like a very wrong idea.
However, a singleton with a decisive strategic advantage does not rule out devices which are running separate AGIs. If devices are physically distant, then the speed of light may require such configurations.
Elements of these considerations need additional thought...