@saraislet Hmmm. Industrial health and safety regs are written in the blood of workers who were harmed by machines, not because machines inherently act to harm humans, but because humans are fragile squishy meat sacks, and the machines hadn't been designed *not* to harm them yet.
Making machines not kill or harm humans doesn't happen by default, or by accident. It takes planning and safeguards.
@saraislet And fully-sentient AGIs with moral frameworks won't appear out of nowhere. They'll be built on slightly worse AIs, which were built on worse AIs than that, which absolutely would have needed safeguards.
When do we take the safeguards away? At what point is one of those AIs capable of long-term/moral reasoning enough that it won't run a human over getting from A to B, just because that was the shortest route, and it wasn't specifically programmed to avoid harming humans?
@aspragg we teach human rules and then those that are capable develop moral frameworks
We can still use rules and safeguards, but in the same way we teach humans not to harm humans, and teach humans driving vehicles that other humans are fleshy meat sacks that go squish. Those safeguards don't have to overwhelmingly lean on robots sacrificing themselves for human safety, they can just emphasize human safety
