I think your argument (if true) would prove too much. If we admit your assumptions:
Clearly, the universe as it is fits A-O’s goals, otherwise A-O would have intervened and changed it already.
Anything we (or the new AI) do to change the universe must align with A-O’s goals to avoid conflict.
Since we do not assume anything about A-O’s goals or values, we can never choose to change the universe in one direction over its opposite. Humans exist, A-O must want it that way, so we will not kill them all. Humans are miserable, A-O must want it that way, so we will not make them happy.
Restating this, you say:
If the superintelligence is actually as powerful as it is, yet chooses to allow humans to exist, chances are that humans serve its purposes in some way. Therefore, in a very basic sense, the Alpha Omega is benevolent or friendly to humans for some reason.
But you might as well have said:
If the superintelligence is actually as powerful as it is, yet chooses to allow humans to keep suffering, dying, and torturing and killing one another, chances are that human misery serve its purposes in some way. Therefore, in a very basic sense, the Alpha Omega is malevolent or unfriendly to humans for some reason.
I suppose I’m more optimistic about the net happiness to suffering ratio in the universe, and assume that all other things being equal, the universe should exist because it is a net positive. While it is true that humans suffer, I disagree with the assumption that all or most humans are miserable, given facts like the hedonic treadmill and the low suicide rate, and the steady increase of other indicators of well being, such as life expectancy. There is of course, the psychological negativity bias, but I see this as being offset by the bias of intelligent agents towards activities that lead to happiness. Given that the vast majority of humans are likely to exist in the future rather than the present or past, then such positive trends strongly suggest that life will be more worth living in the future, and sacrificing the past and present happiness to some extent may be a necessary evil to achieve the greatest good in the long run.
The universe as it currently exists may fit A-O’s goals to some degree, however, there is clearly change in the temporal sense, and so we should take into account the temporal derivative or gradient of the changes as an idea of the direction of A-O’s interests. That humanity appears to be progressing melioristically strongly suggests to me at least that A-O is more likely to be benevolent than malevolent.
If our universe is test simulation, it is a digital experiment to test something, and if it include AI, it is probably designed to test AI behaviour by putting it in complex moral dilemmas.
So Omega is not interested in humans in this simulation. It is interested in behaviour of Beta to humans.
If there will be no human suffering, it will be clear that it is a simulation, and it will be not pure test. Alpha must hide its existence and only hint on it.
If our universe is test simulation, it is a digital experiment to test something,
That’s a tautology. But if you meant “if our universe is a simulation” then why do you think it must be a a test simulation in particular? As opposed to a research simulation to see what happens, or a simulation to make qualia because the simulated beings’s lives have value to the simulators, or a simulation for entertainment value, or anything else.
if it include AI, it is probably designed to test AI behaviour by putting it in complex moral dilemmas.
Maybe the desired outcome from the simulators’ point of view is to develop a paperclipping AI that isn’t swayed by human moral arguments. Maybe the simulation is really about the humans, and AIs are just inevitable byproducts of high-tech humans. There are lots of maybes. Do you have any evidence for this, conditional on being a simulation?
My point was not that we are actually in simulation, but that AI may think that there is some probability that it is in simulation. And if it in simulation, there could be many different possible goals of the owners of simulation—from the point of view of the AI.
But it may put rather high probability to the one of the possible goals—that is the simulation is designed to test its behaviour. Because putting AI in the simulation box is one of the main ideas of AI safety and also in teaching of current neural nets inside computer games.
So the AI gives some probability to the following statements:
a) it is in a simulation
b) it is a testing simulation of its behaviour.
c) and the main thing which is tested about his behavior is if it will violent to its creators—that is its ability to cooperate
We don’t need that the AI will actually believe in this bullshit. We want it to give some very small probability to all 3 prepositions, so after calculation utility of human atoms and utility of preserving humans, preserving humans will overweight.
I think your argument (if true) would prove too much. If we admit your assumptions:
Clearly, the universe as it is fits A-O’s goals, otherwise A-O would have intervened and changed it already.
Anything we (or the new AI) do to change the universe must align with A-O’s goals to avoid conflict.
Since we do not assume anything about A-O’s goals or values, we can never choose to change the universe in one direction over its opposite. Humans exist, A-O must want it that way, so we will not kill them all. Humans are miserable, A-O must want it that way, so we will not make them happy.
Restating this, you say:
But you might as well have said:
I suppose I’m more optimistic about the net happiness to suffering ratio in the universe, and assume that all other things being equal, the universe should exist because it is a net positive. While it is true that humans suffer, I disagree with the assumption that all or most humans are miserable, given facts like the hedonic treadmill and the low suicide rate, and the steady increase of other indicators of well being, such as life expectancy. There is of course, the psychological negativity bias, but I see this as being offset by the bias of intelligent agents towards activities that lead to happiness. Given that the vast majority of humans are likely to exist in the future rather than the present or past, then such positive trends strongly suggest that life will be more worth living in the future, and sacrificing the past and present happiness to some extent may be a necessary evil to achieve the greatest good in the long run.
The universe as it currently exists may fit A-O’s goals to some degree, however, there is clearly change in the temporal sense, and so we should take into account the temporal derivative or gradient of the changes as an idea of the direction of A-O’s interests. That humanity appears to be progressing melioristically strongly suggests to me at least that A-O is more likely to be benevolent than malevolent.
If our universe is test simulation, it is a digital experiment to test something, and if it include AI, it is probably designed to test AI behaviour by putting it in complex moral dilemmas.
So Omega is not interested in humans in this simulation. It is interested in behaviour of Beta to humans.
If there will be no human suffering, it will be clear that it is a simulation, and it will be not pure test. Alpha must hide its existence and only hint on it.
Why do you assume any of this?
That’s a tautology. But if you meant “if our universe is a simulation” then why do you think it must be a a test simulation in particular? As opposed to a research simulation to see what happens, or a simulation to make qualia because the simulated beings’s lives have value to the simulators, or a simulation for entertainment value, or anything else.
Maybe the desired outcome from the simulators’ point of view is to develop a paperclipping AI that isn’t swayed by human moral arguments. Maybe the simulation is really about the humans, and AIs are just inevitable byproducts of high-tech humans. There are lots of maybes. Do you have any evidence for this, conditional on being a simulation?
My point was not that we are actually in simulation, but that AI may think that there is some probability that it is in simulation. And if it in simulation, there could be many different possible goals of the owners of simulation—from the point of view of the AI.
But it may put rather high probability to the one of the possible goals—that is the simulation is designed to test its behaviour. Because putting AI in the simulation box is one of the main ideas of AI safety and also in teaching of current neural nets inside computer games.
So the AI gives some probability to the following statements: a) it is in a simulation b) it is a testing simulation of its behaviour. c) and the main thing which is tested about his behavior is if it will violent to its creators—that is its ability to cooperate
We don’t need that the AI will actually believe in this bullshit. We want it to give some very small probability to all 3 prepositions, so after calculation utility of human atoms and utility of preserving humans, preserving humans will overweight.