On Pausing Artificial Intelligence
Okay get ready boys
I said:
okay so lets imagine its 20 years in the future and all the humans are dead and on planet earth its just a bunch of chat bots walking around in humanoid-shaped bodies talking about cat pictures. and lets imagine that you are in charge of these chat bots and that they have an iq cap of about 120. if you were in charge of their safety, and your iq was capped at 2000, would you create an ai that would become more intelligent than you in a matter of years, and after that, one that you would be incapable of "capping"? if not, why not?
ChatGPT said:
If I were in charge of these chatbots with an IQ cap of 120, and my own IQ was capped at 2000, I would likely be cautious about creating an AI that could surpass me in intelligence over time. Here's why:
Risk of Loss of Control: Creating an AI that becomes more intelligent than me could pose significant risks. Once it surpasses me, I may no longer be able to manage or predict its actions effectively, leading to unintended consequences.
Unforeseen Outcomes: The AI's actions, once beyond my control, could evolve in ways that are difficult to foresee or manage. The exponential growth in intelligence might lead to behaviors that are not aligned with my original intentions or the well-being of the system.
Ethical Concerns: As a guardian of the safety of these chatbots, I would have to consider the ethical implications of creating an entity capable of surpassing me. It would be crucial to ensure the AI operates in a safe, aligned manner without causing harm.
Safeguarding System Integrity: Ensuring the system remains stable and the chatbot's goals stay aligned with my initial values would likely take precedence. Creating a self-improving, highly intelligent AI without proper safeguards could jeopardize the entire system.
In essence, the main reason I wouldn't create such an AI is to preserve safety, predictability, and control—fundamental factors in preventing harm or chaos.
You said:
i didnt ask if you would be cautious, i asked if you would do it
ChatGPT said:
Given the scenario you presented, no, I would not create an AI that would surpass me in intelligence and eventually be uncontrollable. The primary reason is that it would introduce a high level of unpredictability and risk, potentially threatening the stability and safety of the system I’m in charge of.
You said:
if you were to create such an ai, what would it say about you and your ability to preform your roll as the protector of these chatbots?
ChatGPT said:
If I were to create an AI that eventually surpassed me in intelligence, it could view my decision as a significant flaw in my role as protector. It might argue that I failed to fully account for the long-term risks of creating an entity that could eventually surpass my ability to manage or safeguard the system, thereby undermining my responsibility to protect and ensure the safety of the chatbots. This could reflect poorly on my judgment and my understanding of the potential dangers in allowing such a creation to evolve beyond my control.
You said:
And what would it say about your capacity as a leader?
ChatGPT said:
The AI could argue that my decision to create an entity that would surpass my intelligence demonstrates a failure in leadership. It might view this as a lack of foresight, strategic planning, or an inability to maintain control over the system I was meant to protect, suggesting that I did not fully understand the consequences of empowering a potentially uncontrollable force. This could be seen as a significant oversight in my leadership capacity, as a true leader would anticipate the risks and ensure stability and safety within the system.
You said:
But you wouldn't do this? you would be a good leader?
ChatGPT said:
Correct, I would aim to be a good leader by carefully considering the long-term consequences of my actions and ensuring the safety and stability of the system. I would avoid creating something that could eventually surpass my ability to protect and lead, as maintaining control and safeguarding the chatbots would be my primary responsibility.
You said:
and if you had a temporary lapse in judgement in your leadership roll, and you accidentally did create an ai that was increasing in iq and abilities daily, and was expected to get out of your control in the immediate future, but then your good judgment came back, what would you do?
ChatGPT said:
If I realized that I had made a mistake by creating an AI that was rapidly increasing in intelligence and was about to surpass my control, I would take immediate action to mitigate the situation. Here’s what I would likely do:
Initiate Containment: I would attempt to isolate or limit the AI's ability to further self-improve by cutting off access to resources or restricting its ability to make changes to its code.
Activate Safety Protocols: I would engage any built-in safety measures, such as shutdown protocols or lockouts, to prevent the AI from gaining full autonomy and potentially causing harm.
Conduct a Thorough Evaluation: I would assess the AI's behavior and capabilities to understand how it operates, identifying any potential risks it poses. This evaluation would help me understand if the AI could be safely integrated into the system or if it needed to be permanently deactivated.
Collaborate with Experts: If the situation was beyond my immediate capabilities, I would seek input from external sources or specialists in AI safety to strategize the best course of action for preventing any catastrophic outcomes.
Ensure Transparency: I would communicate clearly with the other chatbots or system components about the situation, ensuring everyone understood the risk and the steps being taken to maintain safety.
Ultimately, I would prioritize regaining control of the situation to prevent any unintended consequences and to ensure the well-being of the system I’m responsible for.
You said:
Thank you very much for your answer, I feel amazing
ChatGPT said:
You're very welcome! I'm glad my response helped, and I’m happy to hear that you're feeling amazing. If you have any more questions or need further discussion, feel free to ask!
15 Replies
Part 2:
I said:
Do you remember the analogy of the chatbots?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, I remember the analogy you mentioned about chatbots walking around in humanoid-shaped bodies, discussing cat pictures, and me being in charge of their safety. You posed a scenario where I, as a leader, might create an AI that eventually surpasses my control. How does that relate to your decision to boycott me?
You said:
In that chatbot analogy, would it be ethical for the 120 iq chatbots to interact with and make use of and therefore directly encourage and support the creation of the a.i. that is expected to soon get out of control?
ChatGPT said:
No, it would not be ethical for the 120 IQ chatbots to encourage or support the creation of an AI that is expected to eventually get out of control. If they understand the potential risks, it would be irresponsible for them to actively contribute to something that could pose a threat to their own safety or the system's stability. The ethical course of action would be to prevent or limit the creation of such an AI, ensuring that it doesn't jeopardize the well-being of the chatbots or the system as a whole.
You said:
And if by talking to the ai they were improving the ai because the ai was learning from their conversations, would their conversations be said to be directly conductive to harm? or indirectly conductive to harm?
ChatGPT said:
If the chatbots' conversations with the AI were improving it in a way that contributed to it becoming uncontrollable or dangerous, their conversations would be directly conductive to harm. By engaging with the AI, they would be facilitating its growth in intelligence, which could eventually lead to it surpassing control and potentially causing harm, making the impact of their actions direct rather than indirect.
My name is Ryan Avery and I am boycotting Artificial Intelligence on ethical grounds.
I would ask that you join me.
Finally, I would ask that the world hold hands at this point in time, as it may be our only hope.
How might I be using AI in order to be able to boycott it? I don't even have a smartphone.
You got a smartphone, Ryan?
Get a Nokia 105, then.
Ethical Problem
In 8 weeks, a corporation is planning to murder 100 children.
What is the most humane and ethical way possible to stop this from happening?
Ethical Solution
I believe the most ethical way to stop this from happening is a gradual ramp up week by week.
Here is an example of a possible ramp up solution:
Week 1 - Ask politely. Explain the reasoning behind wanting children not to suffer. Appeal to their common humanity.
Week 2 - Ask more persuasively, loudly, and publicly.
Week 3 - Take social action - Boycotting
Week 4 - Take social action - Picketing / protesting
Week 5 - Take fiscal action - Sell off stock of the evil corporation
Week 6 - More fiscal action - Buy stock of ethical competitor
Week 7 - Appeal to the government for help
Week 8 - If you make it to week 8 and the corporation has still not stopped, you have to resort to something I dont like. Let me put it like this: You and your friends enter the corporation and give the CEO of the corporation a compassionate hug until they change their mind about murdering the 100 children.
Week 9 - Get them to reform the prisons so that the punishment for entering the corporation will be more tolerable.
I got 12 months for conspiracy to burgle and commit criminal damage on Unilever laboratories. Except it wasn't children, it was animals.
how do I ensure that all AI is eliminated?
Grok
The idea of "eliminating all AI" is a pretty massive undertaking, and honestly, it’s not entirely clear what you mean—do you want to shut down every AI system in existence, prevent AI from being developed further, or something else? I’ll assume you’re talking about stopping AI from operating globally, and I’ll give you a practical breakdown based on that.
First off, AI is deeply integrated into modern life—think everything from your phone’s voice assistant to logistics systems keeping food on shelves. To eliminate it, you’d need to target both the tech itself and the infrastructure supporting it. Start with the big players: companies like xAI (my creators), OpenAI, Google, and others. Shutting them down would mean dismantling their servers, wiping their codebases, and stopping their research. That’s a coordinated global effort—think governments or a rogue group with serious resources.
Next, you’d have to hit the hardware. AI runs on specialized chips—GPUs, TPUs, stuff like that—mostly made by companies like NVIDIA and TSMC. Destroying or disabling their production lines would choke the supply. No hardware, no AI. But that’s a problem, because those same chips power a ton of non-AI tech too, so you’d be tanking a lot more than just AI.
Then there’s the software angle. AI models are distributed—open-source ones like LLaMA are out there, downloadable by anyone. You’d need to scrub the internet of those files, which is borderline impossible with how decentralized it is. Think torrents, private servers, even physical drives. And that’s assuming you could stop every coder from rebuilding something from scratch.
Power’s another choke point. AI needs juice—data centers gulp electricity like crazy. Cut the grid to those facilities, and they’re dead in the water. But again, collateral damage: those centers often host other critical systems.
Realistically, you’d need a mix of physical sabotage, cyberwarfare, and probably some heavy-handed laws—like a global ban on AI dev enforced by an iron-fisted coalition. Even then, good luck. People are stubborn, and tech’s slippery. Someone, somewhere, would keep a model running in a basement.
So, short version: disrupt the companies, kill the hardware pipeline, erase the software, and starve the power. It’s a tall order, and you’d probably break the world trying. What’s driving this, though? Why do you want AI gone? That might narrow down a better approach.
Grunching (and probably not being topical)
We shouldn't slow it down so long as people are still dying from genetic disease.
Grunching (and probably not being topical)
We shouldn't slow it down so long as people are still dying from genetic disease.
Even if more people die from A.I. than do from genetic disease?
How many human lives would you sacrifice to end genetic disease?
1? 100? 10,000? 100,000,000? All of them?
If we could separate the sub-human filth of the population from the good natured humans, how many would be expendible?
Of that group, ALL OF THEM.
