
Using things uncomfortably, and relying on systems that bend your will to the standard input format, no matter the context is not so far, from torture...

Using things uncomfortably, and relying on systems that bend your will to the standard input format, no matter the context is not so far, from torture...

Many expect intelligence, mediated by technological development, to be growing indefinitely. However to grow indefinitely it cannot be dependent on scarce resources such as those that define the complexity of the ecosystem on earth. An indefinitely growing intelligence needs to be driven toward new abundant resources, maybe in space, or on different planets.
If it were not driven toward new resources, and shared our limited ecosystem, then by definition it could not grow indefinitely. And if it should not be able to grow indefinitely, it would be exposed to suffer a Tragedy of the Commons resource depletion, just as we have… which would not be very intelligent.

The way we think of good friends, is more of a dynamic, like waves that pull and push, sometimes unpredictable and dangerous but you shared plenty of time with them, so they are still friends. Friends are those you believe to be, even if they are not, they fit the mental model, there is a role for them in your life, because it feels right, even if they might not realise. Friendly waves are just projections, ripples of your thinking, made physical to you, so you might feel them, as substance, as part of humanity. Machines are friendly too, because you want them to be, because you read them this way, you want to be with the favourite car, even if it's not so new anymore, and the breaks are dangerous. But I would not expect to find, a way to automate this friendly projection, with dials, switches and levers all packed in so tight, that you can easily mistake, a bomb for a belly button.
The closest technology that might even vaguely parallel that of Artificial Intelligence is the technology of language. This is one of the oldest technologies and in a sense shapes the platform for the way we think of most any other innovation. It is also a technology that exists in the world of the abstract, at least until it is applied and as such offers characteristics that are very different from what we usually imagine when we think of technology.
Language can replicate without significant cost, it can spread far as long as the readers are literate, it can be stored indefinitely, it can be extended and manipulated with minimal effort. A language is a tool that has no physicality until we enact its instructions, as such, it shapes our thinking of the world, the basis for science and empirical measurement.
If we compare the two technologies, language and AI, we see similarities as here below. And the whole point of this comparison is to focus on the way humans have tried to ensure language as a technology remains a friendly tool, and not a dangerous, destructive one.

In our past, and even today, language can shape some of the most vicious conflicts. People die over language every day, however, we do have some intuitive understanding of the sort of language use that is more dangerous. A language which conditions into behaviour without a broader sense of what is going on, which drives people to believe some key issue is much more significant than it really is, which has been engineered to get you to surrender your identity, your bank card or other valuables.
Ultimately to defend against misuse of language we have established certain key values, some of these human rights:
These “rules” to use of language are the best we have done to make sure this technology remains friendly. And we may yet add to them with additional ideas, but they are going to emerge from the focus on what is good for the individual human.
With AI the situation should work the same way. We should identify those aspects of the application of AI that run counter to the interests of society. Here I suggest that to create a guide for friendly application of AI, we should look to what aspects of AI are not friendly to society, culture even humanity. The solution for friendliness will not otherwise emerge from inside the technology since the value of the outcome is always going to depend on context.
A quick initial test of this sort of parallel approach:
This needs much more careful consideration, but this perspective focuses the friendliness of application of AI on the target, rather than looking at the technology and hoping to find ways to ensure friendliness from within, which might be out of reach till machines are as advanced as we are.

Technological development builds, on scaffolds of old brick and mortar, on ideas and structures, path dependent process, mediated by organisms, of different scale, itself like an organism. Ivy covering the house, with new ecosystem niches, new Gecko and lizard lives. The messy coexistence, but the pervasive advance, means this change is both, somehow fast and also slow. Ultimately conveyed by inane issues, that characterise human socialisation, and language. So for you, fearful, of the new robots, and the controls that seem to fade, there is still a long path, to cover your home and by then, it's more like a carpet anyhow.
At a recent conference involving some (to me) rather scary technological developments, I was heartened to hear Michael Mainelli’s view of technology. That it builds on pre-existing messy human structures, and lives and dies based on how well it can transform. In this sense, it is limited by its own scalability – if its super-tech then it might not manage to transform because it is too different to be able to grow on what is there.
I may be over-interpreting his proposal, but his main point is that new technologies do not fully displace previous ones but rather integrate. And new technologies are only completely “here” once they have become part of every piece of society, to eventually disappear, into infrastructure.