My argument for this as someone who works in the robotics automation field, is that we are striving to automate all of the most dangerous and labour intensive work that humans currently do (Such as construction which currently 3D Printing is seeking to solve and automate), also jobs that are inherently just “filling gaps” for the purposes of allowing a person a wage under the capitalist paradigm. Even jobs you believe people might want, are likely jobs people only do in the absence of something more meaningful. It has always been my belief that STEM careers should always be human driven as they represent the areas where the most innovation and imagination are derived, plus the arts/culture naturally alongside.
Andndn Dheudnd
Karma: −6
Thank you for your response. You make a good point: the difficulty in defining what it means to “benefit humans” is indeed a significant challenge. However, this challenge is fundamentally rooted in the limitations of our current language. Our natural languages are inherently ambiguous, shaped by culture, context, and individual experience, which makes it difficult even for humans to agree on a precise definition of “benefit.”
Given this, it’s not surprising that machines struggle to understand such concepts. If we, as humans, cannot clearly and universally define what “benefit humans” means, how can we expect an AI, which relies on the inputs and instructions we provide, to interpret it correctly? This is precisely why I advocate for the development of a new hybrid language for us in day to day life, a language that reduces ambiguity by integrating precise symbols, mathematical expressions, and logic.
This language isn’t about simply adding a Unicode symbol for “benefit humans”; it’s about creating a structured way of communicating that forces us to be clear and unambiguous in our intentions. By doing so, we can better align AI systems with human goals and values, ensuring that their actions reflect what we mean, not just what we say.