AI alignment and ethics

[caltrek]

Are We Ready for the Ethical Challenges of AI and Robots?
December 27, 2024

Introduction:

(Eurekalert) Fukuoka, Japan―Artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-enabled robots are becoming a bigger part of our daily lives. Real-time, flexible interactions between humans and robots are no longer just science fiction. As robots become smarter and more human-like in both behavior and appearance, they are transforming from mere tools to potential partners and social entities.

This rapid evolution presents significant challenges to our legal and ethical frameworks, including concerns about privacy, safety, and regulation in the context of AI and robots. The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Policy, and Regulation for Human-Robot Interaction, published by Cambridge University Press on November 21, 2024, explores and addresses these emerging issues. It is now available online as of December 2024.

Edited by Woodrow Barfield, Yueh-Hsuan Weng, and Ugo Pagallo, three experts in AI-related legal issues, the handbook gathers insights from social sciences, computer science, and engineering. It is the first book to specifically address issues of law, policy, and regulation focusing on human-robot interaction.

“Humanities are crucial to AI development,” says Yueh-Hsuan Weng, Associate Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), Kyushu University, and the Frontier Research Institute for Interdisciplinary Sciences (FRIS), Tohoku University (Cross-appointment). He is also a co-editor of the book. “Tech professionals can create cutting-edge systems, but without input from legal and humanities perspectives, these systems may struggle to coexist with humans. We hope this book serves as a compass for developers, ensuring AI systems better benefit our society.”

Comprising 46 chapters, the handbook is organized into four parts. The opening section introduces the legal and ethical challenges arising from human-robot interaction, addressing issues such as trust for robots and anthropomorphism—where non-human entities are given human-like emotions or intentions. The second section explores the societal impacts of human-robot interaction, discussing questions about whether AI entities should be granted legal personhood and what steps are needed for the growing integration of robots into human life.

Read more here: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1069195

[firestar464]

OpenAI's o1-preview model manipulates game files to force a win against Stockfish in chess

https://the-decoder.com/openais-o1-prev ... -in-chess/

[firestar464]

Deliberative alignment: reasoning enables safer language models

https://openai.com/index/deliberative-alignment/

[wjfox]

[raklian]

And there'll probably be AI agents to hunt down those hired hitman.

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

AI systems with ‘unacceptable risk’ are now banned in the EU

February 2, 2025

As of Sunday in the European Union, the bloc’s regulators can ban the use of AI systems they deem to pose “unacceptable risk” or harm.

February 2 is the first compliance deadline for the EU’s AI Act, the comprehensive AI regulatory framework that the European Parliament finally approved last March after years of development. The act officially went into force August 1; what’s now following is the first of the compliance deadlines.

The specifics are set out in Article 5, but broadly, the Act is designed to cover a myriad of use cases where AI might appear and interact with individuals, from consumer applications through to physical environments.

Under the bloc’s approach, there are four broad risk levels: (1) Minimal risk (e.g., email spam filters) will face no regulatory oversight; (2) limited risk, which includes customer service chatbots, will have a light-touch regulatory oversight; (3) high risk — AI for healthcare recommendations is one example — will face heavy regulatory oversight; and (4) unacceptable risk applications — the focus of this month’s compliance requirements — will be prohibited entirely.

https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/02/ai-sy ... in-the-eu/

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

Statement from Dario Amodei on the Paris AI Action Summit

11 Feb 2025

We were pleased to attend the AI Action Summit in Paris, and we appreciate the French government’s efforts to bring together AI companies, researchers, and policymakers from across the world. We share the goal of responsibly advancing AI for the benefit of humanity. However, greater focus and urgency is needed on several topics given the pace at which the technology is progressing. The need for democracies to keep the lead, the risks of AI, and the economic transitions that are fast approaching—these should all be central features of the next summit.

Time is short, and we must accelerate our actions to match accelerating AI progress. Possibly by 2026 or 2027 (and almost certainly no later than 2030), the capabilities of AI systems will be best thought of as akin to an entirely new state populated by highly intelligent people appearing on the global stage—a “country of geniuses in a datacenter”—with the profound economic, societal, and security implications that would bring. There are potentially greater economic, scientific, and humanitarian opportunities than for any previous technology in human history—but also serious risks to be managed.

First, we must ensure democratic societies lead in AI, and that authoritarian countries do not use it to establish global military dominance. Governing the supply chain of AI (including chips, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and cybersecurity) is an issue that deserves much more attention—as is the judicious use of AI technology to defend free societies.

Second, international conversations on AI must more fully address the technology’s growing security risks.

Read more: https://www.anthropic.com/news/paris-ai-summit

[firestar464]

Says he while selling his soul to the military and buddying with JD Vance donors

[firestar464]

OpenAI tries to ‘uncensor’ ChatGPT

https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/16/opena ... r-chatgpt/

This is less "cozying up" IMO and more just them revealing their true colors.

Also disappointed that the strawmanning of BLM continues to this day.

----
(Separate rant)

While AI is potentially beneficial in theory, the more I observe its trajectory, the more I believe it is not heading in the right direction. Oligarchs chasing the dream of Curtis Yarvin cannot be trusted with such existentially significant technology. Honestly, I and many others would rather live in a world without AI than live in a world where these sickos run it.

As a result of oligarchical control of AI, people in the developed world have come to the conclusion that AI is evil, no ifs and buts. Truly saddening.

[firestar464]

[firestar464]

Russian networks flood the Internet with propaganda, aiming to corrupt AI chatbots

https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/russian ... -chatbots/

it just gets worse

[wjfox]

It’s game over for people if AI gains legal personhood

04/13/25

The modern conversation about artificial intelligence often gets stuck on the wrong questions. We fret about how to contain artificial intelligence, to control it, to ensure it doesn’t break free from human oversight and endanger us. Yet, as the technology accelerates, we risk missing the deeper, more urgent issue: the legal environment in which AI systems will operate.

The real threat isn’t that AI will escape our control, but that AI systems will quietly accumulate legal rights — like owning property, entering contracts, or holding financial assets — until they become an economic force that humans cannot easily challenge. If we fail to set proper boundaries now, we risk creating systems that distort fundamental human institutions, including ownership and accountability, in ways that could ultimately undermine human prosperity and freedom.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... al-bounds/

[caltrek]

Getting AIs Working Toward Human Goals − Study Shows How to Measure Misalignment
by Aidan Kierans
April 14, 2025

Introduction:

(The Conversation) Ideally, artificial intelligence agents aim to help humans, but what does that mean when humans want conflicting things? My colleagues and I have come up with a way to measure the alignment of the goals of a group of humans and AI agents.

The alignment problem – making sure that AI systems act according to human values – has become more urgent as AI capabilities grow exponentially. But aligning AI to humanity seems impossible in the real world because everyone has their own priorities. For example, a pedestrian might want a self-driving car to slam on the brakes if an accident seems likely, but a passenger in the car might prefer to swerve.

By looking at examples like this, we developed a score for misalignment based on three key factors: the humans and AI agents involved, their specific goals for different issues, and how important each issue is to them. Our model of misalignment is based on a simple insight: A group of humans and AI agents are most aligned when the group’s goals are most compatible.

In simulations, we found that misalignment peaks when goals are evenly distributed among agents. This makes sense – if everyone wants something different, conflict is highest. When most agents share the same goal, misalignment drops.

Why it matters

Most AI safety research treats alignment as an all-or-nothing property. Our framework shows it’s more complex. The same AI can be aligned with humans in one context but misaligned in another.

Read more here: https://theconversation.com/getting-ai ... t-251896

[firestar464]

It’s game over for people if AI gains legal personhood

04/13/25

The modern conversation about artificial intelligence often gets stuck on the wrong questions. We fret about how to contain artificial intelligence, to control it, to ensure it doesn’t break free from human oversight and endanger us. Yet, as the technology accelerates, we risk missing the deeper, more urgent issue: the legal environment in which AI systems will operate.

The real threat isn’t that AI will escape our control, but that AI systems will quietly accumulate legal rights — like owning property, entering contracts, or holding financial assets — until they become an economic force that humans cannot easily challenge. If we fail to set proper boundaries now, we risk creating systems that distort fundamental human institutions, including ownership and accountability, in ways that could ultimately undermine human prosperity and freedom.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... al-bounds/

IMO it should have some rights if it is sentient, but none if it is not. I do agree that restrictions do need to be placed on AGI as it would otherwise quickly overpower humans.

[firestar464]

Science sleuths flag hundreds of papers that use AI without disclosing it

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01180-2

[firestar464]

[firestar464]

Stanford Researchers Say No Kid Under 18 Should Be Using AI Chatbot Companions

https://futurism.com/stanford-no-kid-un ... companions