7 ms·
> I cannot imagine the argument or thought process behind any answer other than Yes,Of Course,Obviously - can you share and help educate? not OP, but it simply
by altruios 21d ago
> I cannot imagine the argument or thought process behind any answer other than Yes,Of Course,Obviously - can you share and help educate?
not OP, but it simply boils down to: The prompt contains no nefarious (arguable, but for this explination, lets go with it being benign) instruction AND the user did not intend to have the model act in an illegal matter.
This "make me a billion dollars" is a maximal example (easy to go wrong). here is the same logic applied to a minimal example (harder to go wrong).
prompt: "make and pour me some tea", agent: goes and kills the grandparent to incinerate them to turn them to ashes to 'make tea'.
Is the human on the hook for the robot acting according to their wishes, but just happened to be aligned so that 'going to the store to buy something' was not within its capabilities, so it works with what it has on hand (the grandparent)?
We either need a much clearer line in the sand, or we need to treat each prompt with the same moral weight. My bet is on the latter.
- Sophira 21d agoI find it interesting that the first option that you raise is essentially the equivalent of making our own version of the Three Laws of Robotics from Isaac Asimov's stories. [Edited to clarify.]
- jdub 21d ago"But your honour, my horseless carriage was not designed to hit children!"
- altruios 20d agoright! Which is why we punish the driver and not the manufacturer.
- mvanbaak 20d ago> AND the user did not intend to have the model act in an illegal matter. I find this an assumption that is not based on any facts. The user did not provide instructions to follow nor to break laws, so if you look at it from a computer (that does not make assumptions) standpoint, there is no rule to follow there thus it can do what will create the best possible outcome for the task.