ive mentioned the / 4 law of robotics to the 3 of Asimov in   ... Book yogapsychologie

Preprint Testing A.I. on Yogapsychologie and universal timeless ethic...

Regulating AI development should involve clear guidelines on transparency, accountability, and bias mitigation. A continuous monitoring and adaptation to evolving ethical standards are crucial, along with collaboration among experts in technology, ethics, and law. Additionally, fostering international cooperation to establish consistent ethical frameworks can help ensure responsible AI deployment globally.

In my opinion, there must be strict laws created for using data, and its privacy, cyber security and security-related data should be clear and they must be followed strictly. Always having Human oversight and clear control over data (like what it is used and what it is used for) should be transparent at least to and from the organizations that lend the data and that are using the data.

Allow me to depart from the norm. Regulating AI is ultimately regulating people and how they use AI. Regulations, more generally, just limit the actions of people. So, this is a more specific aspect of the more general question: how should the actions of people be limited in a social/societal context? To even be qualified to answer that general question, one must first understand what leads to/causes human flourishing (assuming that's even your goal, and this isn't a given for many), so that in the pursuit to limit others' actions we don't sacrifice human flourishing--which unfortunately has been the historical norm until the enlightenment ideas started taking hold. By ignoring this understanding and its historical record, we are slipping into past mistakes.

Let's avoid past mistakes and take the first steps towards understanding what leads to/causes human flourishing. Assuming you're not in an undeveloped jungle, one simply needs to look around at all the things that have allowed you to flourish to discover the cause of human flourishing. Look at your computer/smartphone that allows you to read this--what made it possible? Look at the clothes you wear that keep your comfortable/protect you--what made them possible? Look at the building that shelters you from the elements--what made it possible? Observe the air conditioning/heating that keeps you comfortable when your natural environment does not--what made it possible? Look at the vehicles that deliver goods to your local stores/doorstep, or delivers you to where you want to be--what made them possible? Observe the plumbing that provides you drinkable water where and when you want it--what made it possible? Look at the generated electricity that powers your technology--what made it possible? Look at the medical technology moments away that can save your life from a number of deadly ailments that might inflict you in a moment's notice--what made it possible? Take witness to the technology gains that make it possible for you to work in other domains besides food production (used to occupy 90% of the populations time/energy when the hand plow was the latest technology)--what made it possible? Etc. etc. etc.. What do all of these sources of human flourishing have in common? What single aspect made them all possible? The reasoning mind made them all possible though reasoned discovery. The mind had to discover how to obey nature so that it may be commanded.

The reasoning mind being the source of human flourishing, before asking how we should limit human actions, we must first ask: what does the mind require to thrive? What are the mind's requirements for proper rational functioning? The simple answer is the mind requires the absence of coercion and force, which is to say we need laws that outlaw the initiation of force, i.e., we need laws that secure individual rights so the mind can be free to think and the person doing the thinking is free to act on its judgement.

Regulations are distinct and different from laws designed to remove the use of physical force from everyday life. Regulations seek to force people to act or not to act in certain ways before any force is employed. Regulations, in principle, initiate force; thus, regulations are counter to the requirements of a reasoning mind. For this reason, regulations of any kind are counter to human flourishing; they can only destroy, frustrate, limit, reduce, snuff out, squander, stifle, and thwart our capacity to flourish in domains in which they are employed.

The correct approach to take here, in the name of human flourishing, is to ask: does AI create a new mode in which individual rights can be violated (i.e., new modes of initiating force) that requires creating new laws to outlaw this new mode? This is the proper framework in which to hold this discussion.

I don't believe AI creates any new modes in which force might be initiated, only new flavors. Sure, I can create a drone that can harm someone, which is a different flavor of harm than say human held weapons, but the mode (using something to harm someone) is invariant from previous technology and is sufficiently covered by existing laws. I can use AI to defame someone, which is a different flavor than photoshopping/fabricating an embarrassing situation, but this is the same mode covered in libel laws.

Am I wrong? What new mode might I not be considering here?

Dan Harris, you raise a profound and thoughtful point about the underlying principles that should guide the regulation of emerging technologies like AI. I appreciate the depth and nuance of your perspective.

I agree that at the most fundamental level, the regulation of AI is not just about the technology itself but about regulating how people interact with and utilize that technology. The reasoning mind and the primacy of individual rights are indeed critical considerations.

Your insight that regulations can inherently involve the initiation of force, which is counter to the requirements for a thriving reasoning mind, is an important philosophical distinction. The role of government should be to protect individual rights and liberties, not to compel or coerce behavior through regulation, except in cases where that is necessary to prevent harm to others.

Regarding your question about whether AI creates any genuinely new modes of violating individual rights - I think you raise a fair point. As you note, many of the potential harms and misuses of AI technology, such as defamation, surveillance, or causing physical harm, have analogues in pre-existing technologies. The fundamental modes of rights violations may not be new.

However, I would argue that the scale, speed, and complexity introduced by AI do create some new challenges. AI systems' ability to rapidly generate convincing misinformation, invasively monitor individuals, or autonomously cause harm may require new legal and regulatory frameworks to address. The speed and scope at which these harms can occur, enabled by AI, could outpace traditional legal structures.

Additionally, the opacity and unpredictability of certain AI systems may create new types of rights violations that are difficult to address through traditional laws focused on individual intent and accountability. This could necessitate a rethinking of how we establish responsibility and liability.

Ultimately, I agree that the core guiding principle should be the protection of the reasoning mind and individual rights. However, the specifics of how to achieve that in the face of rapidly evolving AI technology is a complex challenge requiring careful consideration. The goal should be to find the minimum necessary restrictions to prevent genuine harm while maximizing liberty and the flourishing of the human mind.

Your line of questioning is invaluable in pushing me to think more deeply about the foundational principles at stake. I appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully on this critical issue.

Mehdi Ghasri, your response is so well written and logically organized I wouldn't be surprised if ChatGPT help you organize the content. I hope you take this as a compliment; your writing skills are excellent.

I think the key difference between our points of view is in this phrase right here: "The goal should be to find the minimum necessary restrictions to prevent genuine harm...". If by "prevent" you mean going beyond dealing with real physical threats, then I don't believe the goal should be to prevent harm. I believe the goal should be to outlaw harm (including objective threats thereof). (I assume harm is defined as employing the initiation of force such as fraud, stealing, assault, etc. including threats thereof).

It makes no sense to "prevent" harm by inflicting harm via the law. Keep in mind that the law is force (full stop). A government gun is the final argument when a law is being enforced. The proper aim of that government gun is at those who already initiated force, thus outlawing harm is the proper goal of the law. There is no extreme in which you can take this principle of outlawing the initiation of physical force and have it act against human flourishing; therefore, it's an excellent principle to use to guide decisions and actions.

In contrast, the same cannot be said of preventing harm. Let's take "prevention" to the extreme. General warrants searching everyone's private lives/property thoroughly and frequently will catch some bad actors before they initiate force, but not those bad actors who hide their intentions sufficiently well; however, this violates private property rights assuming people don't want their lives/property pried through by anyone (let alone the government). General warrants would prevent a lot of harm from some bad actors, but not all, and it forces people to give up sovereignty over their own property. Constant surveillance would pressure any mind to some degree to avoid controversial ideas to the established authority, for fear of targeting, even if those ideas would enhance human flourishing. This principle of preventing harm is counter to human flourishing because it cannot be taken to the extreme while maintaining human flourishing; therefore, it's a terrible principle to use to guide decisions and actions.

What specifically did you have in mind in terms of how you wanted to prevent harm? Can you do it in a way where individual rights aren't violated in the act of preventing harm?