Hacker News Reader

Comment by orangedog | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand. Human values are not universal, don't they have to be the arbiter? Isn't that all that statement is saying?

View on HN

A for profit company with shareholders designing technology they think will take over the world and run most if not all of humanity, is deciding for itself what human values should be doesn't set off any alarm bells?

They have to decide what "human values" their model is going to be adapted towards. Ultimately, they have to decide that, even if they choose an outside source. How else are they supposed to do it?

It's even worse; they have to let other people decide what human values their AI will support. What if superintelligence helps terrorists build a prosperous society!

The issue is even bigger than cryptocurrency's KYC problem. We may have to start surveilling and censoring citizens at the thinking-level to prevent misanthropic dissent.

I dunno, maybe democratic input into deciding these values? If these machines are going to be as revolutionary as anthropic says such that they risk killing all of us then I think it is rather important that we don't have a CEO-king deciding this for us.

A corporation that needs a gazillion dollars in revenue to survive led by a "rationalist" CEO who thinks that the death of a child is worth 1/4th the death of an adult because children have less complex thoughts will get to decide universal human values for the rest of us. Lovely.

Why on earth should they be the arbitrer? Do people in SF understand how much the rest of the world despises them with this attitude?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com