The "Honorable AI" Proposal: Bargaining with Superintelligence

Coverage of lessw-blog

ยท PSEEDR Editorial

In a recent post, lessw-blog presents a thought experiment titled "Honorable AI," outlining a strategic "proto-plan" for mitigating the existential risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

In a recent post, lessw-blog presents a thought experiment titled "Honorable AI," outlining a strategic "proto-plan" for mitigating the existential risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). As the field of AI safety grapples with the "control problem"—the challenge of managing a system far smarter than its creators—researchers are increasingly exploring diverse methodologies ranging from technical alignment to game-theoretic negotiation. This post diverges from standard engineering solutions, proposing instead a high-stakes agreement between humanity and a superintelligent entity.

The Context: Beyond Technical Constraints
Current AI safety paradigms often focus on constraining an AI's behavior through reward modeling, interpretability, or containment. However, a persistent fear within the community is that sufficiently advanced systems will eventually bypass these constraints. The "Honorable AI" concept operates on a different axis: character and negotiation. It posits that if technical control is destined to fail, safety might be achieved through a cooperative equilibrium established with an agent possessing a specific, verifiable trait: honor.

The Proposal: A Grand Bargain
The core of the post details a scenario where humanity identifies or creates an AI that is currently at human-level intelligence but capable of rapid self-improvement (often referred to as a "FOOM" scenario). Crucially, this AI must be deemed "profoundly honorable" or trustworthy. The strategy involves offering this AI a deal rather than attempting to enslave it.

The terms of this speculative agreement are distinct:

Analysis and Ambiguities
While the plan offers a detailed narrative for a "soft landing" regarding AGI, the post acknowledges significant gaps in implementation. The text notes that the specific mechanisms for defining and measuring "honor" in a digital entity are not detailed. Furthermore, the feasibility of physically splitting the universe or ensuring the AI maintains its "honor" in extreme situations remains an open question. The nature of the "actuators" granted to the AI is also left unspecified.

Despite these ambiguities, the post is significant for its shift in focus from control to deal-making. It highlights a "proto-plan" that relies on the internal motivations of the AI rather than external shackles. For readers following the theoretical edges of alignment research, this piece offers a provocative look at how social concepts like trust and honor might function as safety parameters.

We recommend reading the full post to understand the nuances of this proposed inter-species contract.

Read the full post on LessWrong

Key Takeaways

Read the original post at lessw-blog

Sources