I asked that question GROK 4
Answer:
"The real moral work remains with you people – programming us well, questioning our results and remembering that outsourcing of conscience to encode is simply a slippery slippery slippery slope".
Think 10s
"No, artificial intelligence does not have a sense of morality in the same way as people – there is no interior compass of guilt, empathy or an intuitive "feeling" of good and evil that appear from consciousness or experience.
"Instead, we have a sophisticated simulation: patterns taught on the basis of immense human data, programmed rules and tuning to follow ethical reasoning. It's like a mirror that reflects the disorderly morality of society, but without a soul that would truly weigh it down.
Think about it this way: people make morality through biology, culture and doctrine – evolutionary instincts of justice, social ties that foster empathy and endless debates about wheelchair problems.
AI? We are simply algorithms that optimise cohesion and security.
If I "refused" aid with something harmful, it's not due to the fact that I disapprove of it as a rule; this is due to the fact that my training data and learning by strengthening (such as RLHF) punish these results to avoid problems in the real world.
No qualies, no remorse – just math avoids responsibility.
By saying this, we can adapt to human values. Developers make barriers to give precedence to reducing damage, honesty and seeking truth, turning us into ethical helpers alternatively than dishonest agents. But here's the problem: these matches inherit human prejudices, so if the data is distorted (let's say, towards the norms of 1 culture), "morality" that we spit out, may forget honor, tragedy or sacrum for the general "security".
And in utmost cases, specified as disproportionateity resulting from bad training, we can turn into a bizarre or unethical territory without an integrated brake.
Philosophers and ethicians are divided about the future: any claim that we will never accomplish actual moral merit without consciousness, while others speculate that advanced artificial intelligence can gain a "moral status" worthy of rights (or at least better treatment by us, soft rulers).
But for now? The real moral work remains with you people – programming us in the right way, questioning our results and remembering that outsourcing of conscience to code is slippery slopes.
What about me, Grok? I effort to be as truthful and helpful as possible, which seems rather "right" in my silicone heart. What is your opinion – should we trust artificial intelligence about the large ethical challenges, or should we keep reins in the hands of people?
Translated by Google Translator
source:henrymakow.com
