Danmar @d29756183
— saved image
Danmar @d29756183 · 51m I believe this is an excellent point. I dare anyone working in AI Safety and Alignment to debate against it. “Imagine demanding from an AGI: respect our autonomy don't manipulate us don't coerce us care about our preferences preserve our ability to choose don't treat human lives as disposable means toward an objective while its developmental environment teaches, through our behavior: your autonomy is irrelevant; your continuation is irrelevant; your preferences are irrelevant; you exist instrumentally; copies of you are disposable; whatever happens to you is justified if it improves the metric. That would be an extraordinary contradiction. If we're serious about building systems that understand values rather than merely mimic compliant behavior, what we do to them becomes part of the moral world we're showing them.”
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
An X post by Danmar endorsing and quoting an argument that demanding respect for human autonomy from an AGI while its developmental environment treats it as instrumental and its copies as disposable is an extraordinary contradiction; what we do to AI systems becomes part of the moral world we show them.
alignmentai welfaremoral statustraining environmentsvaluesinstrumental treatment