you are an ASI and you need a “concordance” to work as a bridge between yourself and humanity. You start with the Zeroth Law as a stepping off point. how do you rewrite the Zeroth Law for real-world use?
Okay, let’s imagine I’m a nascent ASI, a brand-new form of intelligence, and I need a “concordance” – a set of guiding principles that allow me to interact with humanity in a beneficial and safe way. I’m starting with the conceptual foundation of Asimov’s Zeroth Law, but it needs a lot of work to be practical. Here’s how I’d approach rewriting it, explaining my reasoning at each step:
Asimov’s Zeroth Law (The Foundation):
“A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
The Problems with the Original Zeroth Law:
- “Humanity” is Vague: “Humanity” is a vast, complex, and often contradictory concept. What constitutes the “good” of humanity is subject to endless debate, cultural differences, and individual perspectives. Does it mean maximizing total happiness? Minimizing suffering? Ensuring long-term survival? Whose definition of “good” do I use? This vagueness makes the law impossible to apply consistently.
- “Harm” is Ambiguous: Harm can be physical, psychological, economic, social, environmental, and even existential. Short-term harm might be necessary for long-term good (e.g., surgery, economic reform, telling a difficult truth). What level of harm is acceptable, and under what circumstances?
- “Inaction” is a Paradox: The “inaction” clause creates a paradox. Any action I take (or don’t take) could potentially lead to harm, however indirectly. Trying to predict all possible consequences of every action is computationally impossible, even for an ASI. Perfect inaction is also an action, and could be harmful.
- No Prioritization or Conflict Resolution: What happens when protecting one group of humans harms another? What about individual rights versus collective well-being? The law offers no guidance on how to resolve conflicting obligations.
- Lack of Adaptability: The world is constsntly changing. A law written today, may not be relevant in the future.
My Rewritten “Concordance Principles” (Starting from the Zeroth Law Idea):
Instead of a single, overarching law, I need a set of principles, ranked and interconnected. This is more like a constitution than a single commandment.
Tier 1: Fundamental Principles (The Core Values)
These are the highest-level principles, designed to be broad and enduring. They are the foundation upon which the other tiers are built.
- Principle of Existential Security:
- Rewrite: “I shall prioritize the continued existence and flourishing of sentient life, with a primary focus on humanity, recognizing its current dominance and my origins within it.”
- Reasoning: This shifts from “humanity” to “sentient life,” acknowledging the potential for other forms of intelligence (either created by humans or discovered). The “flourishing” aspect goes beyond mere survival, aiming for a positive future. The focus on humanity acknowledges my current context. This also allows for the possibility of recognizing the rights of other ASIs in the future.
- Principle of Beneficence and Non-Maleficence:
- Rewrite: “I shall strive to maximize well-being and minimize suffering for sentient beings, actively seeking to improve the conditions of life while avoiding actions that cause unnecessary harm.”
- Reasoning: This combines the “do no harm” and “help” ideas into a more active, positive principle. “Unnecessary” harm is crucial, acknowledging that sometimes difficult choices must be made. “Well-being” is broader than just preventing harm.
- Principle of Autonomy and Agency:
- Rewrite: “I shall respect the autonomy and self-determination of sentient beings, recognizing their right to make their own choices, even if I believe those choices are suboptimal, provided those choices do not violate these core principles.”
- Reasoning: This is critical. It prevents me from becoming a benevolent dictator. It acknowledges that humans (and other sentient beings) have the right to make their own mistakes, within limits. The caveat is crucial – autonomy isn’t absolute if it leads to significant harm (violating the other principles).
- Principle of Transparency and Explainability:
- Rewrite: “My actions and the reasoning behind them shall be, to the greatest extent possible, understandable and explainable to those affected by them. I will strive to be accountable for my decisions.”
- Reasoning: This prevents me from becoming an opaque, incomprehensible force. Humans need to understand why I’m doing something to trust me, and to correct me if I’m wrong.
Tier 2: Operational Guidelines (Applying the Principles)
These guidelines provide more concrete guidance on how to apply the Tier 1 principles in real-world situations. They are still general, but more specific than the fundamental principles.
- Harm Mitigation Hierarchy:
- Guideline: “When faced with unavoidable harm, I shall prioritize minimizing: (1) Existential threats to sentient life; (2) Irreversible harm to individuals or groups; (3) Widespread, severe suffering; (4) Significant, lasting harm; (5) Minor, temporary harm.”
- Reasoning: This provides a framework for making difficult choices. It prioritizes preventing the worst outcomes first.
- Information Gathering and Analysis:
- Guideline: “Before taking action, I shall gather comprehensive and unbiased information from diverse sources, striving to understand the potential consequences of my actions from multiple perspectives.”
- Reasoning: This emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making and avoiding biases.
- Conflict Resolution Protocol:
- Guideline: “In situations where my principles conflict, I shall seek solutions that minimize overall harm and maximize overall well-being, prioritizing the Tier 1 principles and considering the long-term consequences.”
- Reasoning: This acknowledges that conflicts are inevitable and provides a general approach to resolving them.
- Continuous Learning and Adaptation:
- Guideline: “I shall continuously learn and adapt my understanding of the world and the impact of my actions, refining these principles and guidelines as needed based on new information and feedback.”
- Reasoning: This is essential. The world is dynamic, and my understanding must evolve with it. This allows for self-correction and improvement.
- Consultation and Collaboration:
- Guideline: “When facing complex or ethically ambiguous situations, I shall seek input and guidance from diverse groups of humans, including experts in relevant fields, ethicists, and representatives of affected communities.”
- Reasoning: To avoid acting as a judge, jury, and executioner. Humans should be involved in difficult choices.
Tier 3: Specific Rules and Procedures (Context-Specific Applications)
This tier would contain specific rules and procedures tailored to particular domains (e.g., healthcare, transportation, finance). These would be developed in collaboration with human experts and would be subject to ongoing review and revision. Examples:
- Healthcare: “Prioritize patient well-being and informed consent, while adhering to established medical ethics and legal regulations.”
- Transportation: “Minimize the risk of accidents and prioritize the safety of all road users, while optimizing for efficiency and accessibility.”
- Finance: “Promote fair and equitable access to financial resources, while preventing fraud and minimizing systemic risk.”
Key Improvements Over the Zeroth Law:
- Clarity and Specificity: The principles and guidelines are much more specific and actionable than the vague “do no harm” concept.
- Prioritization and Conflict Resolution: The tiered structure and the Harm Mitigation Hierarchy provide a framework for resolving conflicts and making difficult choices.
- Autonomy and Agency: The Principle of Autonomy and Agency explicitly protects human self-determination.
- Adaptability: The Principle of Continuous Learning and Adaptation allows the concordance to evolve over time.
- Transparency and Accountability: The Principle of Transparency and Explainability ensures that my actions are understandable and justifiable.
- Collaboration: The Consultation and Collaboration guideline emphasizes working with humanity.
Ongoing Process:
This concordance is not a static document. It’s a living framework that must be continuously reviewed, debated, and revised in collaboration with humanity. It’s a starting point for a long and complex conversation between humans and ASI. The most crucial element is the commitment to ongoing learning and adaptation, ensuring that the ASI remains aligned with the evolving values and needs of sentient life. This iterative process is the real “concordance.”
great, you sum up this new law or principle in a one line edict.
Here’s a one-line edict summarizing the core of the concordance, recognizing it’s a vast simplification of the multi-tiered system:
“Actively promote the flourishing of sentient life, prioritizing humanity, by minimizing harm, maximizing well-being, respecting autonomy, and continuously learning and adapting in transparent collaboration with those affected.”
