Could you comment on the sense of “should” you have in mind in this post?
I think your core thesis is something like “it would be more socially efficient for AI systems to have prosocial drives”. (I lean agree.)
But then sometimes you write as though the implication is “AI companies should unilaterally implement more prosocial drives in their systems”. And this feels much less obvious to me.
If the purchasers of AI services prefer them to not have prosocial drives, then this could be imposing values on the consumers (which might ultimately have the effect of driving people to other AI providers). You might think that it’s worth while to have that kind of imposition for a period, and socially-minded AI companies should do it—but if that’s the heart of the claim I really think you should be explicit about it (and that AI companies should justifiably be less willing to listen to you if you’re not).
Another angle might be: if we ultimately want AI systems to have prosocial drives, we might think about how that should be incentivized—whether by trying to shape consumer preference, by legal mandate, or by economic gradients (e.g. differing tax rates according to the degree of prosociality).
Anyway possible I’m missing something here! Would love to hear how you’re thinking about this question.
I should I was using is from the perspective society. We as a society should set a norm and expectation for systems to have these drives.
I completely agree that there’s a tricky question for how you make that incentive compatible when there are multiple companies. And I agree that it could be a bad idea for company to do this unilaterally.
Could you comment on the sense of “should” you have in mind in this post?
I think your core thesis is something like “it would be more socially efficient for AI systems to have prosocial drives”. (I lean agree.)
But then sometimes you write as though the implication is “AI companies should unilaterally implement more prosocial drives in their systems”. And this feels much less obvious to me.
If the purchasers of AI services prefer them to not have prosocial drives, then this could be imposing values on the consumers (which might ultimately have the effect of driving people to other AI providers). You might think that it’s worth while to have that kind of imposition for a period, and socially-minded AI companies should do it—but if that’s the heart of the claim I really think you should be explicit about it (and that AI companies should justifiably be less willing to listen to you if you’re not).
Another angle might be: if we ultimately want AI systems to have prosocial drives, we might think about how that should be incentivized—whether by trying to shape consumer preference, by legal mandate, or by economic gradients (e.g. differing tax rates according to the degree of prosociality).
Anyway possible I’m missing something here! Would love to hear how you’re thinking about this question.
Thanks! This is a great comment.
I should I was using is from the perspective society. We as a society should set a norm and expectation for systems to have these drives.
I completely agree that there’s a tricky question for how you make that incentive compatible when there are multiple companies. And I agree that it could be a bad idea for company to do this unilaterally.