Simply, document the process and resources used to derive conclusions. Export this as a standard .xml that can understood by other AI entities. Ask the AI what it means to be “introspective.” Employ the power within to see if a sense of “right and wrong” could lead to rules to help the algorithms understand how wrong answers could harm itself. My broader thought was, if they’re this evolved and so smart, asking them to show their work and defend it is something PhD candidates have to do. Then, they get peer reviewed. Not long ago there was a similar post like this, and the strongest argument against the proposition was “AI was wasting enough electricity, water and other resources right now.” Then ask AI how not to waste less. Make AI optimize, peer review, and instill some sense of introspection. Typing this on an iPad I wanted and didn’t put quotes around my spurious terms to acknowledge them as such. A form of laziness, true, and lack of accountability AI should not abide. tl;dr must be held accountable for results, peer review, and understand consequences through something akin to “introspection” and a worldview within the constraints of Asimov’s three laws. Or we may face an extinction event. Serious shit. submitted by /u/cpkuske
Originally posted by u/cpkuske on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.