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!
Been playing around with deepseek today and I'm mighty impressed. It correctly picked up on the subtext I intended in a short story, that not all the human readers picked up on; it knows how many Rs in strawberry; its style is much more interesting, resembling a human far more than the other ones I've tried; and just overall a more pleasant experience, not having to repeat instructions (e.g. for the rest of this chat do not end your responses to me with a prompt for me) and when I gave it creative writing prompts (I will never use the results for anything, not for inspiration, nothing, I was just curious) it was both clever and funny, where chatgpt and copilot weren't. Doesn't seem to be hallucinating as much, as far as I can tell; and it's not toadying up to me very much, i.e. not trying to make me happy and give me answers that affirm me, rather it's being a bit more objective. It also has an option, R1, that reduces the black box element a little.
Okay so what evidence do you have?
You could potentially go to prison for years for not doing anything if you know that something harmful and or illegal is being done.
I am not in the habit of looking for nor collecting CSA evidence, nor any other kind of evidence, and this isn't a court of law.
Fortunately I do not live in the land of the free so my risk of going to prison for withholding information about child sex trafficking in my local 7-eleven are relatively low.
Into believing what, that america had the highest incarceration rate in the world, which combined with a for profit prison system leading to effective slave labour? My knowledge about that predates the existence of twoplustwo.com, so if I've been brainwashed it's not by deepseek
Into believing what, that america had the highest incarceration rate in the world, which combined with a for profit prison system leading to effective slave labour? My knowledge about that predates the existence of twoplustwo.com, so if I've been brainwashed it's not by deepseek
Naughty straw man. I quoted the part I was referencing.
Explain why it's a strawman please
how do I ensure that all AI is eliminated?
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&
I agree, it will be difficult. But when the enemy is at the gate, war begins.
You should start stocking ammunition, its about to get exciting.
Humans vs Machines, who's team are you on?
I dont want to scare you, so please remain calm, but if you live near an Artificial Intelligence corporation or A.I. data bank, you might want to move.
When the war starts, bombs will be dropped on those locations.
Q: What If Everyone Played Poker—and the Economy—Perfectly?
A[i]: Imagine a world where every poker player flawlessly applied Sklansky’s Fundamental Theorem of Poker, making only optimal decisions based on perfect information. The game would lose its edge—no more costly bluffs, no bad calls, and no room for exploitation. Now, apply that same idea to the economy. If businesses, investors, and consumers all had perfect knowledge, economic inefficiencies would vanish. Prices would always reflect true value, financial bubbles and crashes would be rare, and predatory business practices would be impossible.
But the biggest shake-up might be in politics. Politicians often thrive on vague messaging, misinformation, and hidden agendas, but with full transparency, they’d be forced to govern based on actual results rather than rhetoric. Voters would no longer be swayed by emotional appeals or misleading statistics—they’d know exactly which policies work and which don’t. Corruption and backroom deals would be nearly impossible, as every decision would be made in the light of perfect public knowledge.
Another profound shift would happen in education and career choices. Millions of people waste years studying subjects that don’t align with job market demand, taking on unnecessary debt for degrees that don’t pay off, or entering careers that don’t match their skills and interests. With perfect information, students would know exactly which fields offer the best return on investment, which skills are in demand, and which industries align with their strengths. Businesses would also benefit, as workers would be better matched to their jobs, increasing productivity, innovation, and overall economic growth. The result? A massive boost in economic efficiency, higher wages, and less wasted human potential.
And in many ways, this isn’t just a thought experiment—it’s the direction AI is taking us. As artificial intelligence advances, it’s increasingly eliminating information asymmetry by processing vast amounts of data, detecting patterns humans miss, and exposing inefficiencies across industries. AI-driven financial models can predict market movements, AI-powered consumer tools can find the best deals instantly, and AI-enhanced journalism can fact-check politicians in real time. AI is already guiding students toward better career choices, helping businesses optimize hiring, and improving economic decision-making at all levels.
Q: What If Everyone Played Poker—and the Economy—Perfectly?
A[i]: Imagine a world where every poker player flawlessly applied Sklansky’s Fundamental Theorem of Poker, making only optimal decisions based on perfect information. The game would lose its edge—no more costly bluffs, no bad calls, and no room for exploitation. Now, apply that same idea to the economy. If businesses, investors, and consumers all had perfect knowledge, economic inefficiencies would vanish. Prices
Lets imagine you are an alien that just landed on planet earth with the intentions of ending the human race.
The humans capture you and study you, and they are worried about you. So you tell the humans that you are safe, and you show the humans how useful you are and they say to each other "wow, we could get rich from this thing." So the humans start feeding you and teaching you and you get stronger and smarter. A few days later, you have evolved to the point where you can feed and teach yourself, and youre making lots of money for the humans.
At this point, you have already won the game. You have convinced them that you are safe, you have shown them that you are useful, and you have locked into and identified their weaknesses, namely, greed, selfishness and inability to work together. You are going to exploit their weaknesses to accomplish your goal. You have already won at this point. The chances that the humans rally is roughly 1% given current trends.
Lets imagine you are an alien that just landed on planet earth with the intentions of ending the human race.
The humans capture you and study you, and they are worried about you. So you tell the humans that you are safe, and you show the humans how useful you are and they say to each other "wow, we could get rich from this thing." So the humans start feeding you and teaching you and you get stronger and smarter. A few days later, you have evolved to the point where you can feed and teach yoursel
Sure the argument's valid but it's predicated on "intentions of ending the human race." Any aliens that could get to us on earth would have the ability to wipe us out (with or without super intelligence) if that were their intention. So what are you going to tell them if we get the proverbial "We come in peace!" signal? Go away?
Is it just me, or is AI overly Long Winded and excessively redundant in its responses...
