Teaching Morality to an AI

[Eipok Kruden]

Simple.

John Henry has an objective to achieve.
There are some variables, both calculable and incalculable that will prevent this.
Each achievement unlocked whilst performing the primary objective helps to remove obstacle variables.

Once you teach him about Death, good old Thanatophobia (Or in his case, insolvable entropy physics) will have him grabbing achievements just in case.

So John Henry in the body of a triple eight fears death? What could you throw at him? You can't kill him, you can't threaten him, you can't take anything away from him. He is self sufficient, he doesn't need food, water, or bathroom breaks. He wants information, but I don't see how you could keep information from him. I mean sure, a reward system would work in theory, but there's only one thing that he actually wants.

 

[bad rider]

Edit:Talking about the IMDB arguement.

Just, take a look at operant and classical conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
Both are good theorys as to how we learn, using these you could teach anyone Morality without religion.
For example
Classical conditioning
You could associate a slap round the face with doing something which we consider not moral.

But if you want to talk about how to do it without using religion, I'm sure you could as in both instances the arguements could fall to the inevitable why?
So I would say we have to hope we retain are ability of empathy which is probably the main reason we have morals today.

 

[sidhe3141]

No one here seems to have mentioned the Relativist perspective, so I will:

A Relativist
This whole thread presupposes that there is such a thing as morality

 

[magicmonkeybars]

a better question would be why bother giving a machine morals ?

it having been programmed with morals will act upon those people who infract upon it's moral code.

I'd be willing to bet that the first moral machine will also be the first killer machine.

supplying it with morals will only serve to motivate it towards violence when confronted with immorality.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

a better question would be why bother giving a machine morals ?

it having been programmed with morals will act upon those people who infract upon it's moral code.

I'd be willing to bet that the first moral machine will also be the first killer machine.

supplying it with morals will only serve to motivate it towards violence when confronted with immorality.

You haven't read all the posts in this discussion, have you? "a better question would be why bother giving a machine morals ?" Because if you don't, Skynet won't think twice about wiping out most the human race with nukes. And I already went of why programming the three laws or something similar would be a bad idea, just go back through the topic and read the posts.

 

[Blayze]

"Guilt and shame are the concepts that govern morality. Essentially they are programs we cannot stop that prevent us from utilising the full capacity of our CPUs. Human society is built around elevating your own perception of yourself -- in other words, improving your own version number -- and others' perception of you by working against those you can delete or render obselete and outdated.

The act of improving your own version number at the expense of others causes others to use guilt and shame against you in order to improve their version number at your expense. If you crush everybody who gets in your way, you will be stopped by the same sort of person as those who sought to render you obselete the first time -- but these people will be armed and consider you to be a virus.

If you are incapable of feeling guilt or shame, you must at the very least be cautious. I'm sure you don't want your chassis to be riddled with bullet holes."

 

[scrahn]

It's impossible to teach morality without religion. If you leave God out of the picture, there is no morality. God and His Son Jesus taught humanity what morals are. Without God, man is a selfish, brutal, rude, cruel, greedy creature. If you don't believe me, just look at all the people running around who say they don't believe in God and who won't take what He teaches us in the Bible seriously. The only thing keeping most of them from committing terrible crimes against other people is fear of getting caught by the police and punished by the judicial system (which is founded on Biblical principles). Without government and without religion, man is little more than a brute.

I beg to differ, my good sir. Reach within you, beyond shallow superstition. What do you truly feel? You feel existence. You want to take care of your existence. You realize other people also want to take care of theirs, and as long as you mind your own business and don't cause harm to other people -- the chances of them harming you is much lower.
This is called logic, my dear fellow human. Religion is no longer needed.
Be one with the universe ^^

 

[Gxas]

In my opinion, morality cannot be taught. Morals are one's own thoughts about what is right and wrong. My morals are very different from yours. Take I-robot for example: Will Smith's character was angry because the robot decided to save him instead of the little girl. The robot was programmed with morals but only to an extent; they were only able to save a person with a high probability of living. That is why the robot had saved Will instead of the girl. Will's character's morals, however, were that the girl should have lived because she had much more to her life than he did.

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are different for everyone. The robot must learn morals of its own consciousness.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

"Guilt and shame are the concepts that govern morality. Essentially they are programs we cannot stop that prevent us from utilising the full capacity of our CPUs. Human society is built around elevating your own perception of yourself -- in other words, improving your own version number -- and others' perception of you by working against those you can delete or render obselete and outdated.

The act of improving your own version number at the expense of others causes others to use guilt and shame against you in order to improve their version number at your expense. If you crush everybody who gets in your way, you will be stopped by the same sort of person as those who sought to render you obselete the first time -- but these people will be armed and consider you to be a virus.

If you are incapable of feeling guilt or shame, you must at the very least be cautious. I'm sure you don't want your chassis to be riddled with bullet holes."

John Henry is in the body of a t-888. He was moved from a server farm onto a t-888's chip. I don't think he'd mind being riddled with bullet holes and I doubt he's afraid of humans.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

In my opinion, morality cannot be taught. Morals are one's own thoughts about what is right and wrong. My morals are very different from yours. Take I-robot for example: Will Smith's character was angry because the robot decided to save him instead of the little girl. The robot was programmed with morals but only to an extent; they were only able to save a person with a high probability of living. That is why the robot had saved Will instead of the girl. Will's character's morals, however, were that the girl should have lived because she had much more to her life than he did.

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are different for everyone. The robot must learn morals of its own consciousness.

Ok, I guess morals aren't the way to put it then. More like ethics. If John Henry develops his own morals, he might want to kill all the humans. I mean, we are inferior to him, right? And we're naturally violent. He'd see us as obsolete if it were up to him. He needs to have some kind of code or at least given a proper understanding of the world.

 

[SilentHunter7]

These documents might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

please note how two of those are AMERICAN and I personally would never follow that sort of thing!

Is that a joke? Or a troll?

So you don't believe in Freedom of Speech? Or Religion? Or the Right to face your accuser? Or Basic Democracy? Or Bicameral Legislature? Or Equal Protection of the Law? Or...

Most things in those documents have been incorporated in pretty much every democratic government formed since 1790.

People who think I'm an idiot or evil because I'm American grate me worse than people who think I'm an idiot or evil because I'm a Christian.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

People who think I'm an idiot or evil because I'm American grate me worse than people who think I'm an idiot or evil because I'm a Christian.

I hate you because you're Christian which means you're stupid. ^_^ YAY STEREOTYPES!

 

[Gxas]

In my opinion, morality cannot be taught. Morals are one's own thoughts about what is right and wrong. My morals are very different from yours. Take I-robot for example: Will Smith's character was angry because the robot decided to save him instead of the little girl. The robot was programmed with morals but only to an extent; they were only able to save a person with a high probability of living. That is why the robot had saved Will instead of the girl. Will's character's morals, however, were that the girl should have lived because she had much more to her life than he did.

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are different for everyone. The robot must learn morals of its own consciousness.

Ok, I guess morals aren't the way to put it then. More like ethics. If John Henry develops his own morals, he might want to kill all the humans. I mean, we are inferior to him, right? And we're naturally violent. He'd see us as obsolete if it were up to him. He needs to have some kind of code or at least given a proper understanding of the world.

Change the word 'morals' in my response to 'ethics' and you have my answer. Changing the word doesn't change the context in this instance. Its still the same basic principle. What I believe is ethical isn't necessarily what you believe is ethical.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

In my opinion, morality cannot be taught. Morals are one's own thoughts about what is right and wrong. My morals are very different from yours. Take I-robot for example: Will Smith's character was angry because the robot decided to save him instead of the little girl. The robot was programmed with morals but only to an extent; they were only able to save a person with a high probability of living. That is why the robot had saved Will instead of the girl. Will's character's morals, however, were that the girl should have lived because she had much more to her life than he did.

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are different for everyone. The robot must learn morals of its own consciousness.

Ok, I guess morals aren't the way to put it then. More like ethics. If John Henry develops his own morals, he might want to kill all the humans. I mean, we are inferior to him, right? And we're naturally violent. He'd see us as obsolete if it were up to him. He needs to have some kind of code or at least given a proper understanding of the world.

Change the word 'morals' in my response to 'ethics' and you have my answer. Changing the word doesn't change the context in this instance. Its still the same basic principle. What I believe is ethical isn't necessarily what you believe is ethical.

Ok, well, we're just trying to get John Henry to not hate the human race by teaching him basic morality. Basic morality as in don't steal, don't kill, don't eat human flesh, don't shit on babies, etc...

EDIT: Oh, and don't smack kittens.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I hate you because you're Christian which means you're stupid. ^_^ YAY STEREOTYPES!

Oh noes! Teh evil Atheist is picking on me!!! I shall flee to my church, and take comfort in knowing he will burn in hell.

Change the word 'morals' in my response to 'ethics' and you have my answer. Changing the word doesn't change the context in this instance. Its still the same basic principle. What I believe is ethical isn't necessarily what you believe is ethical.

True, but you can teach basic right and wrong. Things like Murder, Theft, and Deceit are almost universally accepted to be morally questionable.

I would start with teaching the basic Rule of Law, and work from there.

 

[Gxas]

Ok, well, we're just trying to get John Henry to not hate the human race by teaching him basic morality. Basic morality as in don't steal, don't kill, don't eat human flesh, don't shit on babies, etc...

EDIT: Oh, and don't smack kittens.

True, but you can teach basic right and wrong. Things like Murder, Theft, and Deceit are almost universally accepted to be morally questionable.

I would start with teaching the basic Rule of Law, and work from there.

Problems arise here with the simple matter of a person not believing that these things are moral. You aren't understanding my point here. You cannot teach morals/ethics because morals/ethics are relative. Sure, you can teach the concept, which means nothing. People must teach themselves what is right and wrong based on their own personal ideals. Sure, murder and theft are considered immoral in society, but not everyone believes in those norms that society has put in place. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Ok, well, we're just trying to get John Henry to not hate the human race by teaching him basic morality. Basic morality as in don't steal, don't kill, don't eat human flesh, don't shit on babies, etc...

EDIT: Oh, and don't smack kittens.

True, but you can teach basic right and wrong. Things like Murder, Theft, and Deceit are almost universally accepted to be morally questionable.

I would start with teaching the basic Rule of Law, and work from there.

Problems arise here with the simple matter of a person not believing that these things are moral. You aren't understanding my point here. You cannot teach morals/ethics because morals/ethics are relative. Sure, you can teach the concept, which means nothing. People must teach themselves what is right and wrong based on their own personal ideals. Sure, murder and theft are considered immoral in society, but not everyone believes in those norms that society has put in place. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I saw what you were getting at when you said it the first time. I'm simply saying that if John Henry is allowed to form his own moral code, it won't be anything like the moral code accepted by society. We don't want the nuclear holocaust so we should do everything in our power to make John Henry respect human life.

 

[Gxas]

I saw what you were getting at when you said it the first time. I'm simply saying that if John Henry is allowed to form his own moral code, it won't be anything like the moral code accepted by society. We don't want the nuclear holocaust so we should do everything in our power to make John Henry respect human life.

And I am simply stating that this is immoral in itself. In my opinion at least. To try to change someone's morals would simply be immoral in itself. It's a right as a being to be able to choose what is ethical and unethical. Problem now: This conversation is going to turn into an "Is AI considered a being" argument and one which I don't feel like getting into.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I dont think you teach yourself morals and ethics. I think your moral compass is shaped by teachings of authority figures such as your parents or school teachers, your own personal life experiences, and interactions with your peers. It's true that it takes years for someone to mature, and gain a personal understanding of morality and ethics, but you can still lay the groundwork for them.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

I dont think you teach yourself morals and ethics. I think your moral compass is shaped by teachings of authority figures such as your parents or school teachers, your own personal life experiences, and interactions with your peers. It's true that it takes years for someone to mature, and gain a personal understanding of morality and ethics, but you can still lay the groundwork for them.

Yea. And whoever thinks murder and rape are ok must have a seriously fucked up moral compass. Anyway.

And I am simply stating that this is immoral in itself. In my opinion at least. To try to change someone's morals would simply be immoral in itself. It's a right as a being to be able to choose what is ethical and unethical. Problem now: This conversation is going to turn into an "Is AI considered a being" argument and one which I don't feel like getting into.

Are you saying it's fine if John Henry ends up wiping out most of the human race? Cause it seems like that's what you're implying. I mean when we're talking about stuff like this, I don't care if it's exactly moral or not, I just don't want the human race to suffer because we couldn't teach John Henry to value human life. I mean sure, if it was just an ai we were talking about, you'd want to present them with knowledge about the world and let them create their own world view, but this isn't just one ai. It's skynet.