Assuming that the only way to make a machine safe and useful is by offering it a compensation is turbocharged anthropomorphism betraying particular leanings. We have smart contracts for such scenarios (more or less, if things are happening on computer networks). Problem arises when one starts wishing (even actively lobbying) for a legal personhood of AI models. This seems to be the case here. Kaczynski warned about this. It is also laughable, and a recipe for disaster, to accord infallible trust in some chosen technologists.
regards, Shashank https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/ ---- On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 04:06:17 +0530 Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote --- Does this even make sense? Should AI be compensated for doing what we want it to do? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vxfEtbCwmZKu9hiNr/proposal-for-making-credible-commitments-to-ais -- Matt Mahoney, mailto:[email protected] https://agi.topicbox.com/latest / AGI / see https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi + https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members + https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tba3441daa3852b75-M2bc7983ba8ec20677f66d511 ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tba3441daa3852b75-M920ce11ea455f7f83ec2046f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
