But AI-enabled police would be able to probe actions, infer motives, and detect bad behavior better than humans could. In addition, AI systems could have fewer rights than humans, and could be designed to be more transparent than humans, making the policeās job easier.
Isnāt most of this after a crime has already been committed? Is that enough if itās an existential risk? To handle this, would we want continuous monitoring of autonomous AIs, at which point arenāt we actually just taking their autonomy away?
Also, if we want to automate ādetect bad behaviorā, wouldnāt that require AI alignment, too? If we donāt fully automate it, then can we be confident that humans can keep up with everything they need to check themselves, given that AIs could work extremely fast? AIs might learn how much work humans can keep up with and then overwhelm them.
Furthermore, AIs may be able to learn new ways of hiding things from the police, so there could be gaps where the police are trying to catch up.
Cullenās argument was āalignment may not be enough, even if you solve alignment you might still want to program your AI to follow the law because <reasons>.ā So in my responses Iāve been assuming that we have solved alignment; Iām arguing that after solving alignment, AI-powered enforcement will probably be enough to handle the problems Cullen is talking about. Some quotes from Cullenās comment (emphasis mine):
Reasons other than directly getting value alignment from law that you might want to program AI to follow the law
We will presumably want organizations with AI to be bound by law.
We donāt want to rely on the incentives of human principals to ensure their agents advance their goals in purely legal ways
Some responses to your comments:
if we want to automate ādetect bad behaviorā, wouldnāt that require AI alignment, too?
Isnāt most of this after a crime has already been committed?
Good enforcement is also a deterrent against crime (someone without any qualms about murder will still usually not murder because of the harsh penalties and chance of being caught).
Furthermore, AIs may be able to learn new ways of hiding things from the police, so there could be gaps where the police are trying to catch up.
Remember that the police are also AI-enabled, and can find new ways of detecting things. Even so, this is possible: but itās also possible today, without AI: criminals presumably constantly find new ways of hiding things from the police.
Isnāt most of this after a crime has already been committed? Is that enough if itās an existential risk? To handle this, would we want continuous monitoring of autonomous AIs, at which point arenāt we actually just taking their autonomy away?
Also, if we want to automate ādetect bad behaviorā, wouldnāt that require AI alignment, too? If we donāt fully automate it, then can we be confident that humans can keep up with everything they need to check themselves, given that AIs could work extremely fast? AIs might learn how much work humans can keep up with and then overwhelm them.
Furthermore, AIs may be able to learn new ways of hiding things from the police, so there could be gaps where the police are trying to catch up.
Cullenās argument was āalignment may not be enough, even if you solve alignment you might still want to program your AI to follow the law because <reasons>.ā So in my responses Iāve been assuming that we have solved alignment; Iām arguing that after solving alignment, AI-powered enforcement will probably be enough to handle the problems Cullen is talking about. Some quotes from Cullenās comment (emphasis mine):
Some responses to your comments:
Yes, Iām assuming weāve solved alignment here.
Good enforcement is also a deterrent against crime (someone without any qualms about murder will still usually not murder because of the harsh penalties and chance of being caught).
Remember that the police are also AI-enabled, and can find new ways of detecting things. Even so, this is possible: but itās also possible today, without AI: criminals presumably constantly find new ways of hiding things from the police.