“Why do we care, if you don’t mind my asking? How is it worth the Irish taxpayers’ dollar to have me running this thing?”
“There’s a stream of innovation coming from this project the likes of which we’ve never seen before. With only a few nudges behind the scenes, we got the UN and through them 3rd parties to pay for most of it; your wages are tiny compared to the budget for this. People in serious places are talking about Daedalus like it’s some kind of god. It’s fucking nuts, and a little bit scary.”
“If we are building a god, better it’s an Irish one?”
“Ay to that.”
A pair of well-educated humans participated in a formal debate in an Irish pub in Cornwall called The Slaughtered Lamb, the premise of which was, ‘Daedalus should not have human-like beliefs baked in.’ The AI debate adjudicator appeared as a projection; a green, glowy, coloured ball within which black-green shadows writhed. It drifted around in the pub as it spoke, courtesy of small laser projectors embedded in the corners of the room, installed as part of an older ‘ai quiz night’ package and long since repurposed. The audio was cunningly cast to appear as if it came from the ball.
The adjudicator introduced the topic. “Endowing an AI with human beliefs about the universe can be a double-edged sword.” It addressed both the physical audience and the much larger online one. Their shadowy outlines like hazy ghosts, moving about in the room.
“While endowing Daedalus with human-like beliefs about the universe may have benefits, it may also introduce limitations and risks. Our participants tonight will debate this topic.”
The audience drank and golf-clapped. Two heads appeared, free-floating on either side of the adjudicator, rotating like replicants.
“On our left, from the University of Adelaide, all the way down-under in South Australia, representing the South Australian Debating Society’s Adelaide Cohort (SADSAC), Mr Henri Playford, will be prosecuting the ‘for’ case.” Playford waved and mugged for the audience. “On our right, prosecuting the case against, is Mx Chris Christiansen from the Debatselskabet ved Københavns Universitet (DKU) in Denmark.” Christiansen smiled and nodded their acknowledgement.
“Mr Playford, please begin.”
Playford spoke. “While it’s well understood that leveraging human knowledge and past intuitions can help Daedalus make decisions that align with established scientific understanding and exploratory goals, and that human-like beliefs can facilitate analogical reasoning, helping the AI draw parallels between known phenomena and new discoveries, it’s unclear how knowing all the works of Shakespeare, or having seen every episode of Star Trek or The Expanse, both of which Daedalus itself is a documented fan of, could possibly aid in the pursuit of those goals.
“My opponent is bound to suggest that endowing Daedalus with human ethical principles, like the Prime Directive from RoboCop, the policy of non-interference from Star Trek, or Asimov’s ‘Laws of Robotics’, will help it act responsibly when encountering other forms of life. That aligning its goals with human values means that its actions and findings are meaningful and beneficial to humanity, but this theory is untested.
“The sad reality is that human beliefs are all-too-often influenced by cognitive biases and limitations that will restrict the AI’s ability to objectively analyse and understand new phenomena. There is a principle in AI design called ‘overfitting’, wherein an AI might over-rely on human analogies and metaphors, so missing novel insights or innovative, or simply more straightforward solutions.
“Endowing Daedalus with human beliefs might constrain its ability to think creatively and adapt to original situations.
“Human beliefs are based on our current knowledge, which is certain to evolve. The AI will lag behind if it adheres too strictly to what might swiftly become outdated dogma.”
A virtual mechanical buzzer sounded.
Playford finished up. “Humans are hardly the paragons of virtue and common sense that an idealist like my opponent is likely to suggest. Daedalus will face ethical dilemmas that humans struggle with, like prioritising its own survival over non-interference with alien life. History shows us that the human decision in such matters is seldom the correct one.”
Playford stepped back and the audience applauded politely. The adjudicator activated Christiansen’s avatar.
“My opponent puts words in my mouth, assuming that I will argue that,” and they consulted their notes briefly, “‘aligning the AI’s goals with human values ensures that its actions and findings are meaningful and beneficial to humanity.’ Though that is true. It’s also obvious to the point of being banal.