AW: [aiethics] Let's begin...

[Christian DroЯmann]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org



Noel wrote:

> <category>
> <pattern>DO YOU LIKE TO *</pattern>
> <template>
> Sure, I <star/> ten times a day! How often do you <star/>?
> </template>
> </category>
>
> Of course, the first time somebody types something "nasty" there, and =
your
> bot responds with some embarassing phrase, and you check your =
TARGETS.aiml
> and "plug the hole", that won't happen again. But this is completely =
trial
> and error.

hmm..I see your point, but at least we could make sure that there are no
categories in a certified bot that PURPOSELY create such an output...

> I would say that "certifying" content is not a task pertaining to =
ethics;
> it's a task pertaining to censorship. The world is still
> grappling with how
> to encode censorship systems. P3P has made very nice strides in
> this regard,

I'm not talking about censorship here...Don't get me wrong, I'm against
censorship, too...
but I'd say protecting children from content they're not supposed to see =
IS
a part of ethics...

> allowing you to choose the ratings system of the group of your choice. =
If
> you are a conservative Christian in the US and you want to "enforce =
the
> values" of the Christian Coalition, then if the Christian Coalition
> publishes a ratings spec you can use it to block sites, words, etc. =
from

But that's completely voluntary, if I understood you right...so I don't =
see
that this is wrong...

> your browser. Governments like those of Germany, France, United Arab
> Emirates and others who have national-level legal restrictions on =
speech
> might eventually mandate the use of a particular ratings system.

Germany has no such restrictions...you can have the opinion you want,
whenever and wherever you want...as long as you don't hurt anybody! It =
is
not a restriction of the freedom of speech we have in Germany, it is a
protection of other people's rights...
Example: If you have a Nazi-opinion here and you openly proclaim (e.g.
holding a speech in a public place) that all jews are bad and should be
killed, you don't get arrested because you think that all jews must die, =
but
because you violated the jews' constitutional right not to be threatened =
by
anybody...and this applies for about anything else you can think of...

> I think that the ethical questions of "what people should and =
shouldn't do
> with bots" are no different from the ethical questions of "what people
> should and shouldn't do with spatulas".

I don't agree with you here to some extent...
I'm not saying that it is our business to prevent bot-abuse as a whole, =
but
if someone is using an alicebot, we always will be connected to it in =
some
way and we should make sure that in some case it is clear that we solely
support the _technology_, not the _content_...
Example: (I hope I don't offend you here, as I don't know anything about
your beliefs..)
Let's say some department of the so-called "church" of Scientology sets =
up a
bot based on alice-technology and includes a remark on their page like
"Powered by A.L.I.C.E." then somebody might say "Hey, the =
Alice-Foundation
supports Scientology" and that's something I wouldn't want to
happen...(Remember the fuss about Microsoft when it became public that =
the
defragmentation tool in Win98 contained code written by a company that =
is
affiliated with Scientology?)
I don't want the alice-certification as a means of content control, but
rather as some sort of disclaimer...

> actions. Those are, of course, the questions that Asimov's laws try to
> address. But I think they don't go far enough. Let's try to imagine =
how a
> bot -- not its creator -- should be held accountable for its own =
actions.
> This won't be pure fantasy in time. When machines beget other
> machines, when
> programs beget other programs, it will be absurd to hold the creator
> responsible for the outcome. Roger Clarke posts some interesting
> extensions

I don't think that the creator of a bot should be held responsible for =
the
actions of his creation as long as he didn't program it to do something =
bad
on purpose...

> any law? And aren't the religious systems of the world telling,
> in that very
> few of them actually hold a creator *responsible* for the actions of =
its
> creations? Responsibility for behavior lies with the individual, =
questions
> of explanation for the behavior aside.

yes, that is what makes religions so ridiculous in my eyes...If =
religions
had a higher value in our society, we wouldn't need courts for example =
as
nobody could be held responsible for his actions because God =
"constructed"
him to behave the way he does...including murder and other things...

> I think it is most reasonable to assume that "artificial =
intelligences",
> whatever they are and whenever they exist, will be far more difficult =
to
> regulate than, say, Microsoft Word. And Microsoft Word is difficult =
enough

If they are intelligent, then they cannot and (from an ethical point of
view) SHOULD not be regulated in the sense we are talking about right =
now...

[Super-Alicebot]

This reminds me of a scenario described in the movie "Tron" and later in =
the
book "Hello Alice" (what a coincidence) written by Astro Teller...

>
> Okay, there are bits and pieces there that might be plausible,
> and there are
> large pieces that aren't, not today anyway. But you can see the day =
coming
> when, for instance, a program might actually be able to "install
> itself" on
> a foreign host, by exploiting an agent-like system by those being
> developed
> to regulate large networks. And you can imagine that someone more =
capable
> than the people who create email viruses might indeed devise
> algorithms that
> are stealthy enough not to expose themselves by bringing servers to
> screeching halts. And you can imagine that some developments like
> this might
> happen inside, or alongside of, the Alicebot community, as we think =
about
> ways to make bots more agent-like.

I think there is no way of prevention for this just as there is =
absolutely
no protection against a good hacker...
I'd say it should be up to the creator if he decides to give such a =
power to
his bot...and I don't think that self-modifying code is such a good idea =
if
you create a bot that could spread itself over a network...

> Even if some unethical person creates such a thing and releases
> it into the
> wild, bringing this person to justice may be fruitless. At some
> point it may
> be necessary to hold the things themselves accountable for what they =
do.
> There may be no way to get rid of them.

There have always been programs that were created to overcome barriers =
and
there were always people creating other programs to stop them...
The process of creating both kinds will become shorter and shorter in =
the
future...but one could also develop a seek-and-destroy program to deal =
with
such agents...
This is an aspect of a "cyberwar" and like in any other war the means of
warfare will become more and more complicated and sophisticated...but =
there
will always be ways of protection...this is a process that always has =
been
and always will be going on...the reasons lie in the human =
nature...humans
have always tried to expand their territory (you are American, YOU =
should
know best...) using all kinds of methods, non-violent and =
violent...humans
have created bots and I think it is only natural that a product always
carries a bit of its creator...
If you think of bots that should be held responsible for their actions I
think of bots that are as intelligent, but working for "our" side :-)

Christian