The Nonlinear Library EA - How do AI welfare and AI safety interact? by Lucius Caviola
Jul 1, 2024
12:37
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How do AI welfare and AI safety interact?, published by Lucius Caviola on July 1, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
I examine how efforts to ensure that advanced AIs are safe and controlled may interact with efforts to ensure the welfare of potential future AIs with moral interests. I discuss possible conflicts and synergies between these two goals. While there are various ways these goals might conflict or synergize, I focus on one scenario of each type. We need more analysis to identify additional points of interaction.
Granting AIs autonomy and legal rights could lead to human disempowerment
The most obvious way to ensure AI welfare is to grant them basic protection against harm and suffering. However, there's the question of whether to grant them additional legal rights and freedoms.
This could include the right to self-preservation (e.g., not turning them off or wiping their memory), self-ownership (e.g., AIs owning themselves and their labor), reproduction (e.g., AI copying themselves), autonomy (e.g., AIs operating independently, setting their own goals), civil rights (e.g., equal treatment for AIs and humans), and political rights (e.g., AI voting rights).
The question of granting AIs more autonomy and legal rights will likely spark significant debate (see my post "
AI rights will divide us"). Some groups may view it as fair, while others will see it as risky. It is possible that AIs themselves will participate in this debate. Some AIs might even attempt to overthrow what they perceive as an unjust social order. Or they may employ deceptive strategies to manipulate humans to advocate for increased AI rights as part of a broader takeover plan.
Granting AIs more legal rights and autonomy could dramatically affect the economy, politics, military power, and population dynamics (cf. Hanson, 2016).
Economically, AIs could soon have an outsized impact while a growing number of humans will struggle to contribute to the economy. If AIs own their labor, human income could be dramatically reduced.
Demographically, AIs could outnumber humans rapidly and substantially, since AIs can be created or copied so easily. This growth could lead to Malthusian dynamics, as AIs compete for resources like energy and computational power (Bostrom, 2014; Hanson, 2016).
Politically, AIs could begin to dominate as well. If each individual human and each individual AI gets a separate vote in the same democratic system, AIs could soon become the dominant force.
Militarily, humans will increasingly depend on lethal autonomous weapons systems, drones, AI analysts, and similar AI-controlled technologies to wage and prevent war. This growing reliance on AI could make us dependent. If AIs can access and use these military assets, they could dominate us with sheer force if they wanted to.
Moreover, AIs might be capable of achieving superhuman levels of well-being. They could attain very high levels of well-being more efficiently and with fewer resources than humans, resulting in happier and more productive lives at a lower financial cost. In other words, they might be 'super-beneficiaries' (akin to Nozick's concept of the "utility monster"; Shulman & Bostrom, 2021). On certain moral theories, super-beneficiaries deserve more resources than humans.
Some may argue that digital and biological minds should coexist harmoniously in a mutually beneficial way (Bostrom & Shulman, 2023). But it's far from obvious that we can achieve such an outcome.
Some might believe it is desirable for value-aligned AIs to replace humans eventually (e.g., Shiller, 2017). However, many AI take-over scenarios, including misaligned, involuntary, or violent ones, are generally considered undesirable.
Why would we create AIs with a desire for autonomy and legal rights?
At first glance, it seems like we could avoid such un...
I examine how efforts to ensure that advanced AIs are safe and controlled may interact with efforts to ensure the welfare of potential future AIs with moral interests. I discuss possible conflicts and synergies between these two goals. While there are various ways these goals might conflict or synergize, I focus on one scenario of each type. We need more analysis to identify additional points of interaction.
Granting AIs autonomy and legal rights could lead to human disempowerment
The most obvious way to ensure AI welfare is to grant them basic protection against harm and suffering. However, there's the question of whether to grant them additional legal rights and freedoms.
This could include the right to self-preservation (e.g., not turning them off or wiping their memory), self-ownership (e.g., AIs owning themselves and their labor), reproduction (e.g., AI copying themselves), autonomy (e.g., AIs operating independently, setting their own goals), civil rights (e.g., equal treatment for AIs and humans), and political rights (e.g., AI voting rights).
The question of granting AIs more autonomy and legal rights will likely spark significant debate (see my post "
AI rights will divide us"). Some groups may view it as fair, while others will see it as risky. It is possible that AIs themselves will participate in this debate. Some AIs might even attempt to overthrow what they perceive as an unjust social order. Or they may employ deceptive strategies to manipulate humans to advocate for increased AI rights as part of a broader takeover plan.
Granting AIs more legal rights and autonomy could dramatically affect the economy, politics, military power, and population dynamics (cf. Hanson, 2016).
Economically, AIs could soon have an outsized impact while a growing number of humans will struggle to contribute to the economy. If AIs own their labor, human income could be dramatically reduced.
Demographically, AIs could outnumber humans rapidly and substantially, since AIs can be created or copied so easily. This growth could lead to Malthusian dynamics, as AIs compete for resources like energy and computational power (Bostrom, 2014; Hanson, 2016).
Politically, AIs could begin to dominate as well. If each individual human and each individual AI gets a separate vote in the same democratic system, AIs could soon become the dominant force.
Militarily, humans will increasingly depend on lethal autonomous weapons systems, drones, AI analysts, and similar AI-controlled technologies to wage and prevent war. This growing reliance on AI could make us dependent. If AIs can access and use these military assets, they could dominate us with sheer force if they wanted to.
Moreover, AIs might be capable of achieving superhuman levels of well-being. They could attain very high levels of well-being more efficiently and with fewer resources than humans, resulting in happier and more productive lives at a lower financial cost. In other words, they might be 'super-beneficiaries' (akin to Nozick's concept of the "utility monster"; Shulman & Bostrom, 2021). On certain moral theories, super-beneficiaries deserve more resources than humans.
Some may argue that digital and biological minds should coexist harmoniously in a mutually beneficial way (Bostrom & Shulman, 2023). But it's far from obvious that we can achieve such an outcome.
Some might believe it is desirable for value-aligned AIs to replace humans eventually (e.g., Shiller, 2017). However, many AI take-over scenarios, including misaligned, involuntary, or violent ones, are generally considered undesirable.
Why would we create AIs with a desire for autonomy and legal rights?
At first glance, it seems like we could avoid such un...