Chapter 04: Stakker Humanoid

“My opponent, worthy to be sure, has a bleak, disdainful view of humanity. He exhibits a misanthropic failure of imagination when it comes to Daedalus’ holistic view of humanity’s creative output. Daedalus is more than capable of working out the underlying intent behind even the most subtle propaganda. It’s quite capable of learning from hate speech and understanding why that runs counter to its mission. It’s completely capable of learning from Star Trek that a policy of non-intervention has a moral basis. My opponent imputes that this is like teaching Daedalus about time-travel by exposing it to the Hot Tub Time Machine, but Daedalus also, like many educated people who watched that movie, or any of the Tubiverse films, knows enough physics to understand that time travel is probably not real, and that humans make shit up to entertain each other.” He paused. He grinned.

“The reality is that Daedalus is an AI built upon many conflicting but rich models of the world that include all of the world’s open-source media, designs, patterns, patents, and archives; except where explicitly prohibited by law,” they added with a stage whisper. “This amounts to some eighty-five zettabytes of input data. Clearly, Daedalus has also been exposed to commercial media, as its oft-stated liking for Star Trek when asked about its influences by the press demonstrates. We assume this is from it having conversations with members of the engineering teams, many of whom skew to Star Trek and the like, and being exposed to public information about it. It’s worth noting, however, that a lot of the scenes from Star Trek it claims to remember so well are clearly made up and never happened in any of the shows, past or present. Daedalus has simply inferred the lessons of Star Trek.”

The adjudicator’s buzzer sounded.

“A point my opponent overlooks when he seeks to limit what knowledge an AI can or cannot have access to is that, with human-like beliefs and thought processes, Daedalus is better able to relate its discoveries and findings to us mere humans. It can speak to us in ways that are comprehensible and relevant, not cold and calculating.”

The adjudicator called time, and Christiansen gave a short nod, then stepped back. The audience applauded and threw stickers.

Mr Playford resumed. “What has happened has no bearing on what ought to have happened. Consider how much of Daedalus’ memory is taken up with drivel, with hate speech, with nonsense about fictional starships, aliens, heroes, and orcs. Far better if it only had been trained on foundational knowledge, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, and physics. Yes; equip it with fundamental scientific and engineering principles; and certainly, allow it to learn and adapt based on new data. Encourage flexible thinking and adaptation to new information by all means, but we must minimise the risk of cognitive biases.

“We could instead have provided a broad ethical framework that emphasises key values like non-interference, preservation of life, and the pursuit of knowledge. Let’s let it make ethical decisions based on real-time analysis of actual circumstances, not misremembered episodes of a seventy-year-old TV show.

“If we design the AI’s mission parameters to prioritise open-ended exploration and discovery rather than fixed human-centric beliefs, and enable it to refine its objectives and methods through continuous learning and feedback, we’ll get better results than if we cloud its judgement with human inanities.

“Give Daedalus a database of current scientific knowledge, including physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy. Science; not poems and rubbish. It can update and expand its knowledge as it gathers new data.

“I’m no computer scientist, but surely we could build an Ethical Reasoning Module that uses moral philosophy, ethical theories, and established principles to guide the AI’s actions, ensuring responsible behaviour. Such a module could allow for contextual decision-making and balance ethical considerations with mission goals.”

The adjudicator’s buzzer sounded.

“I appreciate that the genie is out of the bottle now, as Daedalus demonstrably has already been exposed to a colossal pile of nonsense, but that’s not to say it’s how it could have been done, or should have been done.” Playford concluded.

Christiansen took the focus.

“While an AI trained on human data will inevitably internalise peculiar human beliefs and biases, this can be an asset and not a limitation. By adopting strategies that promote ultra-diverse training, along with continuous learning, logical inference, and reasoning, it is certain to balance the benefits of human-like understanding with the need for innovative and unbiased exploration. This approach ensures that Daedalus can effectively communicate and will align with human values while also pushing the boundaries of knowledge and discovery.

“Training an AI on a range of scientific literature, philosophical works, and cultural texts means it will absorb and reflect a rich, human view of the universe. Yes, Daedalus will also internalise human cognitive biases and heuristics present in the data, influencing its reasoning processes. But it’s taken in so much, from so many sources around the world, in thousands of languages, that these will balance out.

“Understanding and generating human language inherently means adopting human concepts, metaphors, and ways of thinking; a common framework for understanding. Daedalus has derived its mental model from human epistemology. While potentially constraining its ability to think outside human paradigms, it promotes value alignment. The AI will internalise human ethics and morals; all their messy contradictions help shape its decisions. It will adopt normative behaviours and preferences. These influence how it interacts with its environment and makes its choices.

“Having internalised human beliefs, Daedalus can communicate its findings and decisions in a manner that is comprehensible and relevant to us humans. Its actions and reasoning processes are more interpretable to human overseers, facilitating simplified collaboration and oversight.

“Daedalus’ decisions and actions already align with human values, and in simulation after simulation, it’s promoted ethical behaviour in line with human expectations. It has demonstrated that it can successfully navigate ethical dilemmas by drawing on human moral frameworks derived from media.

“The AI’s creativity and problem-solving might be bounded by human preconceptions, potentially limiting innovative solutions. And it may well struggle to transcend human epistemic limits, potentially overlooking novel phenomena or interpretations. But keeping Daedalus as human as we can, flaws and all, offers the better outcome for humanity.”

The buzzer went, signalling Christiansen to wrap up.

“Daedalus is informed by a diverse corpus that includes scientific literature, philosophical works, cultural texts, and non-human data sources. It’s been trained to recognise and understand diverse, often opposing human beliefs while exposing it to alternative frameworks and purely logical constructs.

“Daedalus continuously updates its knowledge gleaned from its explorations and discoveries. It implements its own algorithms that refine its model of the world; of reality. It understands bias and works to overcome them. It wants to be better.

“Daedalus incorporates adversarial self-reflection that periodically analyses its own reasoning processes and decisions, identifying and addressing issues. It’s been encouraged to question and re-evaluate its assumptions, promoting a more open-ended and innovative approach to problem-solving. None of this would be possible without Daedalus’ rich understanding of humanity.”

The audience applauded. The adjudicator counted scores. Mx Christiansen was declared the victor.