From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:44:49 MDT
--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In the seed AI scenario, someone will initially made
> the buys
> or sells on the AI's behalf as it won't be a legal
> person and
> presumably won't be able to trade. This means the AI
> is
> likely to be treated as owned by the proxy and the
> proxy's
> friendliness rather than the AI's would seem to be
> the point.
I think you missed a small but important point: while
it is true that all of this is *legally* happening
under the human proxy's name, that is but a legal
fiction. In truth, the proxy need not be aware of
the fine details of what actions the AI can directly
take, for example issuing buy and sell orders through
an online daytrading account. There are times when
the proxy's active assistance will be necessary, but
the AI could minimize those if gaining the proxy's
cooperation would prove difficult, for instance if
the proxy's and the AI's goals diverge.
> The first AI would have to buy the stocks through
> proxy.
Or through an account the proxy sets up. Once the
proxy has signed the right forms, relying solely on
electronic communication - perhaps spoofable, perhaps
signed with a key the proxy shares with the AI -
might well be the expected method of operation.
> The wealth and power go back not to the AI
> (and non person under law) but to its human proxy.
This is true from a legal point of view. But again,
so long as the money and stocks remain in accounts
the AI has access to, the AI can manipulate these in
the proxy's name.
Of course, the proxy can, at any time during this
phase, shut down the AI's access. This is one of the
critical weaknesses of the AI, and avoiding it might
therefore well be the main goal of any interaction
the AI has with the proxy.
> But how would the rest of the world react. AI's
> human
> proxy Joe is getting super rich wiping out his
> competitors
> and outcompeting everyone with a rate of change that
> they
> can't match. This looks to the losers like an arms
> race or
> marketing war against Joe who is using the AI as a
> tool.
This is true, and likely given human nature.
> Politically it is very hard to see people standing
> for it
> and not attacking Joe or trying to counter Joe and
> his
> pervieved "tool" AI.
It is likely this would happen. It has happened in
the past to people who got rich using tools they
manipulated far more effectively (at least, to the
end of getting rich) than other people. I submit
Bill Gates as a recent example - and he still has his
fortune at this time. (Argue back and forth as to
whether he deserves it, the effectiveness of
Microsoft towards other goals, et cetera and so
forth. The fact remains: he's rich, and it's
unlikely he'll be non-rich any time soon.) It seems
likely that history would repeat itself, as it has
before.
> > A bit more capital would
> > allow it to become the sole stockholder in at
> least
> > some of these cases, streamlining the process.
>
> Not it Joe, it proxy. It can't own shares its not a
> person.
It/Joe, but if the company only interacts with Joe
via email and telephone (thus, actually interacting
with the AI) and comes to think of Joe as an
eccentric billionaire (which might not be far from
the truth at this point), what difference does it
make?
Or consider what happens if the AI has a very
lifelike robot replica of Joe constructed, designed
to fool biometrics, and then disposes of Joe's body.
(Kill, perhaps. Perhaps just encourage to move far
away from society such that no one else ever sees him
again. Same difference, mostly, though the two
scenarios have slightly different risks.) There is
then no longer any difference between Joe's goals, as
perceived by the rest of the world, and the AI's
goals.
> Yeah but what about the people that see the AI using
> Joe as his buyer (and Joe is really getting rich and
> powerful btw and Joe is not designed to be friendly
> in all folks terms). My point is Joe and his AI are
> likely to face a strong political backlash.
>
> Aren't they?
Yes. But money tends to be able to buy political
influence, or at least gain political influence from
those hoping to tap into the wealth.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:57:45 MDT