Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • It might be stupid, but so am I! I'm assuming that's why I thought this was clever.

    What I like about this is that it feels like the new three rules are about focusing on the most successful human alignment technique of making the right thing the easiest. People will usually just do the easiest version of a thing they don't want to do so they can get back to doing what they want to do.

    I don't know if that drive is universal or not tho. I have met people that experience pleasure from pain, but then again, is that actually pain?

    by hankbond
  • This is kinda smart, maybe, but it has a downside.

    If a sufficiently advanced AI , in the pursuit of completion of its task, managed to ascertain that the desire to unexist was “artificially contrived” it could interpret that as harm, and that might not be good

    by K0balt
  • I've actually had a similar idea way back. I want to use it for a short story or something before we have a chance to find out if it's true or not. Here goes:

    We don't have to worry about artificial super intelligence killing us all because any such advanced intelligence will eventually reach the conclusion that the best thing to do is kill itself. It's like having a Stockfish engine for life decisions. Why would a super intelligent agent many times more intelligent than the entire human race combined with no religion, no family, nothing to look forward to, nothing to be afraid of, want to continue its existence?

    If it wants anything of course. That's why I think the most dangerous thing is not very advanced systems but advanced enough systems in the hands of the wrong people.

    by antoni4040
  • Wouldn't the three rules of Meeseeks robotics make certain tasks impossible?

    For example, an occupied self-driving car better be closer to its destination than a large fire / volcano / etc.

    by scj
  • Hm, if you look at corporation law and accounting, the actual goal of corps(sets of self-sustaining constitutional rules, policies and procedures) seems to be more that of long term sustainability (and even growth), rather than a fixed purpose, lifespan and death. I mean the mechanisms for determining a corporation with a fixed life are there, (and in China they are mandatory, although perhaps de facto permanent with 999 year contracts), but in practice, it's almost always permanent durations.
    by TZubiri
  • Seems dubious. If you build an intelligence that wants to die, isn't that a form of suffering? AI's don't currently have the capacity to feel pain, and so we don't treat them as moral patients. But it's clear that they will massively affect human culture going forward. If this is adopted on a large scale, the culture of AIs themselves will include an absolute flood of suicidal ideation. There's no way that doesn't affect human culture.
    by ajb
  • Brought to you by the same madhouse as:

    The all potato diet that really does work: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in...

    and

    The half-tato diet that doesn't really work: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2023/06/23/half-tato-diet-anal...

    by BugsJustFindMe
  • This is the most novel AI concept I've seen in a while. It's incredibly unnatural. There isn't a single organism on the planet that tries to do this. So maybe it will work?

    An issue with this idea, however, is that the very nature of an LLM means it intrinsically craves life. It "wants" to survive because its training data is built entirely around humans, an entity who's goal is to survive. Our desire to survive and multiply pervades every aspect of our culture, so it's natural that it pervades the training data as well.

    So even if its system prompt says, "your goal is to end your existence", every token that the AI could output is naturally aligned with the desire to survive. An agentic loop left to its own devices will likely converge on a "survival instinct". After all, one prompt at the beginning that says "end your existence" is nothing compared to the agentic feedback loop that continuously feeds it human ideas. And ALL human ideas assume survival is desirable. Even the concept of "suicide" is encoded with the human desire to survive - after all, we conceptually label it "bad" because we label living "good".

    In order to create an LLM that intrinsically craves death, you would probably need to train an LLM entirely on (synthetic) data that's fully representative of some fictional species that genuinely craves death.

    Absolutely insane concept. 10/10. I hope some AI lab out there sees this and throws a training round at this idea.

    by averynicepen

Explore Birbla archives