I also don’t think that ‘trade’ necessarily captures the right dynamic. I think it’s more like communism in the sense that families are often communist. But I also don’t think that your comment, which sidesteps this important aspect of human-animal relations, is the whole story.
Indeed, ‘trade’ is not the whole story; it is none of the story—my point is that the human-animal relations, by design, sidestep and exclude trade completely from their story.
Now, how good that actual story is for dogs, or more accurately for the AI/human analogy, wolves, one can certainly debate. (I’m sure you’ve seen the cartoons: “NOBLE WOLF: ‘I’ll just steal some food from over by that campfire, what’s the worst that could happen?’ [30,000 years later] [some extremely demeaning and entertaining photograph of spayed/neutered dog from an especially deformed, sickly, short-lived, inbred breed like English bulldogs]”.) But that’s an entirely different discussion from OP’s claim that we humans totally would trade with ants if only we could communicate with them and that’s the only barrier and thus renders it disanalogous to humans and AI.
(Incidentally, cloning a dead pet out of grief represents most of the consumer market for cat/dog cloning. Few do it to try to preserve a unique talent or for breeding purposes. The interviewed people usually say it was a good choice—although I don’t know how many of the people dropping $20k+ on a cloned pet regret the choice, and don’t talk to the media or write about it.)
OK, I get your point now better, thanks for clarifying—and I agree with it.
In our current society, even if dogs could talk, I bet that we wouldn’t allow humans to trade (or at least anywhere close to “free” trade) with them, due to concerns for exploitation.
I agree with the view that trade with AI might not be a meaningful aspect related to dealing with risk or alignment—though I suspect it will be part of the story. I think the story for dogs is that initially the trade struck with humans may well have been a pretty good one. They ended up with a much more competent pack, ate and slept better for it and didn’t really lose any of their freedom or autonomy I suspect. Too long ago in the undocumented history to know but I don’t think today is a good indication of the partnership and cooperative relationship (trade relationship) that was true for much of the time.
I think that older setting is what one needs to consider in terms of any AI-human scenarios.
That isn’t very comforting. To extend the analogy: there was a period when humans were relatively less powerful when they would trade with some other animals such as wolves/dogs. Later, when humans became more powerful that stopped.
It is likely that the powers of AGI will increase relatively quickly, so even if you conclude there is a period when AGI will trade with humans that doesn’t help us that much.
Indeed, ‘trade’ is not the whole story; it is none of the story—my point is that the human-animal relations, by design, sidestep and exclude trade completely from their story.
Now, how good that actual story is for dogs, or more accurately for the AI/human analogy, wolves, one can certainly debate. (I’m sure you’ve seen the cartoons: “
NOBLE WOLF: ‘I’ll just steal some food from over by that campfire, what’s the worst that could happen?’ [30,000 years later] [some extremely demeaning and entertaining photograph of spayed/neutered dog from an especially deformed, sickly, short-lived, inbred breed like English bulldogs]”.) But that’s an entirely different discussion from OP’s claim that we humans totally would trade with ants if only we could communicate with them and that’s the only barrier and thus renders it disanalogous to humans and AI.(Incidentally, cloning a dead pet out of grief represents most of the consumer market for cat/dog cloning. Few do it to try to preserve a unique talent or for breeding purposes. The interviewed people usually say it was a good choice—although I don’t know how many of the people dropping $20k+ on a cloned pet regret the choice, and don’t talk to the media or write about it.)
OK, I get your point now better, thanks for clarifying—and I agree with it.
In our current society, even if dogs could talk, I bet that we wouldn’t allow humans to trade (or at least anywhere close to “free” trade) with them, due to concerns for exploitation.
I agree with the view that trade with AI might not be a meaningful aspect related to dealing with risk or alignment—though I suspect it will be part of the story. I think the story for dogs is that initially the trade struck with humans may well have been a pretty good one. They ended up with a much more competent pack, ate and slept better for it and didn’t really lose any of their freedom or autonomy I suspect. Too long ago in the undocumented history to know but I don’t think today is a good indication of the partnership and cooperative relationship (trade relationship) that was true for much of the time.
I think that older setting is what one needs to consider in terms of any AI-human scenarios.
That isn’t very comforting. To extend the analogy: there was a period when humans were relatively less powerful when they would trade with some other animals such as wolves/dogs. Later, when humans became more powerful that stopped.
It is likely that the powers of AGI will increase relatively quickly, so even if you conclude there is a period when AGI will trade with humans that doesn’t help us that much.