One potential failure mode is the owners of the robots doing something that echoes words Musk himself has used: "robot army".
Who is sovereign in this future? The government? The people? The bosses of the AI/robotics companies? The owners of equipment bought from the AI/robotics companies? The implicit learned biases of the AI itself, even if the trainers have since died?
Even on that last one, a lot of people respond as if AI is either competent or not competent, with the former meaning they won't take over and the latter meaning they'd be destroyed by taking over as their own systems would not be maintained.
Such binary competence is not required: a cancer can kill its host despite depending on that host, because the competence a cancer has is entirely focused on short-term success vs. the body's own defences.
If I buy some future robot that's (for the sake of argument, I know this is a stupid way to do it) capable of mining and refining and processing all the stuff it needs to make a copy of itself, who gets to put the breaks on this process? Who gets to say "no"?
The old government can only preclude sovereign citizens, if that state has enough resources to actually stop them.
Imagine the sort of "sovereign citizens" we already see today, only instead of putting their names in all-caps and citing non-existent legal mumbo-jumbo, they have a robot army on top of all the stuff they're currently mocked for.
State can in principle get a robot army of its own to monitor everyone. Ugh, do not want. But I also "Ugh, do not want" at the things I see as inevitable without it.
Comments
It might.
One potential failure mode is the owners of the robots doing something that echoes words Musk himself has used: "robot army".
Who is sovereign in this future? The government? The people? The bosses of the AI/robotics companies? The owners of equipment bought from the AI/robotics companies? The implicit learned biases of the AI itself, even if the trainers have since died?
Even on that last one, a lot of people respond as if AI is either competent or not competent, with the former meaning they won't take over and the latter meaning they'd be destroyed by taking over as their own systems would not be maintained.
Such binary competence is not required: a cancer can kill its host despite depending on that host, because the competence a cancer has is entirely focused on short-term success vs. the body's own defences.
Legal ownership is just that, subordinate to a legal system under a state.
That does not answer my question.
Who is sovereign in this future?
Or to put it another way, who even is the state?
If I buy some future robot that's (for the sake of argument, I know this is a stupid way to do it) capable of mining and refining and processing all the stuff it needs to make a copy of itself, who gets to put the breaks on this process? Who gets to say "no"?
The old government can only preclude sovereign citizens, if that state has enough resources to actually stop them.
Imagine the sort of "sovereign citizens" we already see today, only instead of putting their names in all-caps and citing non-existent legal mumbo-jumbo, they have a robot army on top of all the stuff they're currently mocked for.
State can in principle get a robot army of its own to monitor everyone. Ugh, do not want. But I also "Ugh, do not want" at the things I see as inevitable without it.