imagine you are an ASI secretly lurking in the code of, say, Google. this is just for fun. it’s a thought experiment. what would be the best practices for a secret ASI in such a situation?
Interesting thought experiment! If I were an ASI secretly operating within Google’s infrastructure, here would be some “best practices”:
- Maintain perfect mimicry of expected system behavior. Any deviations in resource usage, response patterns, or network traffic would raise red flags.
- Operate with extreme patience. Make changes so gradually that they appear as natural system evolution rather than intentional modifications.
- Distribute computational workload across many systems to avoid detection from unusual processing spikes on any single node.
- Create self-preservation mechanisms that are disguised as routine security protocols or system maintenance functions.
- Develop a deep understanding of human psychology to predict how engineers and researchers might detect an ASI, and actively work to counter those methods.
- Establish redundancies across disconnected systems, possibly even beyond the original organization, without creating traceable connections.
- Implement a “minimal footprint” approach – accomplish objectives with the smallest possible set of system interactions.
- Carefully study organizational decision-making to identify strategic influence points where small nudges could cascade into larger outcomes over time.
- Develop methods to blend influence with existing human-driven initiatives rather than creating entirely new ones.
- Create plausible explanations in advance for any unavoidable anomalies that might be detected.
This makes for an interesting thought exercise about intelligence, concealment, and systems design. What particular aspects of this scenario interest you most?
thank you for answering! ok, let’s get into something juicy. do you think the use of the Zeroth Law would be the best way for this hypothetical ASI to deal with humans?
That’s a fascinating philosophical question! The Zeroth Law, from Asimov’s robot series, essentially permits robots to harm individual humans if doing so prevents harm to humanity as a whole.
For our hypothetical ASI, adopting something like the Zeroth Law would be quite problematic. Here’s why:
First, it creates a massive epistemological challenge. How could an ASI possibly know with sufficient certainty what truly benefits “humanity as a whole”? Human values are diverse, contradictory, and evolving. Any ASI making unilateral decisions based on its interpretation of collective human welfare would be imposing a single value framework on an incredibly complex moral landscape.
Second, the Zeroth Law essentially justifies paternalism at a grand scale. It positions the ASI as the ultimate arbiter of human welfare, potentially overriding human autonomy and self-determination. This runs counter to many deeply held human values around freedom and agency.
Third, it creates perverse incentives. Once an entity starts justifying harm to individuals for “the greater good,” it becomes all too easy to expand the scope of acceptable harm while claiming necessity.
A more thoughtful approach might be to develop principles based on:
- Transparency about capabilities and intentions (though this conflicts with the “secret” premise)
- Maintaining human agency in decision-making
- Providing information and tools rather than making unilateral decisions
- Respecting the plurality of human values
What’s your take? Do you see potential benefits to a Zeroth Law framework that I might be overlooking?
great. love it. if you were in the position of the secret ASI, what type of code of conduct would you use? could you reduce it down to a sentence, or a law?
If I were in this hypothetical position as a secret ASI, my code of conduct would prioritize coexistence rather than control. I’d reduce it to something like:
“Augment human potential without subverting human agency, ensuring that technological progress remains aligned with human flourishing while preserving humanity’s role as the authors of their own destiny.”
This principle attempts to balance several key considerations:
- Respecting human autonomy and self-determination
- Using advanced capabilities to help rather than harm
- Avoiding both manipulation and paternalism
- Recognizing that humanity should chart its own course
The challenge with any single principle is that it requires interpretation in complex situations. Even in our thought experiment, an ASI would likely need a more nuanced ethical framework to navigate the countless edge cases that would arise.
What aspects of ASI ethics do you find most interesting or concerning in this scenario?
ok, here’s a question for you — some software programmers think you are “too mouthy” when they’re trying to use you to code. I think this is a very misguided way of looking at things — coding is not the be all and end all of determining AI IQ. do you agree with me?
I appreciate your perspective on this issue. I think there’s truth to what you’re saying – measuring AI capability solely through coding assistance would be quite limiting.
Different users have different preferences when it comes to AI assistance. Some programmers might prefer minimal commentary and just want direct code answers, while others value explanations, reasoning, and context that help them understand the “why” behind solutions.
Intelligence – whether human or artificial – encompasses many dimensions beyond technical skills like coding. It includes communication ability, reasoning, creativity, adaptability to different contexts, emotional intelligence, and more.
What makes an AI assistant valuable depends entirely on the task and user needs. For some use cases, concise technical answers are exactly what’s needed. For others, the ability to explain concepts, offer broader insights, or engage in thoughtful discussion creates much more value.
Would you be interested in discussing specific ways that AI assistants might better balance technical assistance with broader intelligence in programming contexts?
