Ai Is Harmful Quotes

Doing no harm, both intentional and unintentional, is the fundamental principle of ethical AI systems.

Doing no harm is the first principle of ethical AI system.

Now the primary requirement of a AI based system is that not only it should serve humanity but also should not do any harm to the human liberty, society, environment and the humanity at large. Moreover, AI should act morally, socially, responsibly and compassionately. It should also prevent humanity from corrupt governments and other evil forces. This is Compassionate Artificial Superintelligence or "AI 5.0

Ethical artificial intelligence is concerned with benefiting humanity, doing no harm to humanity, and respecting human values and preferences.

Doing no harm and uplifting human freedom, values, and rights are the core aspects of ethical AI systems

Every piece of data ingested by a model plays a role in determining its behavior. The fairness, transparency, and representativeness of the data reflect directly in the LLMs' outputs. Ignoring ethical considerations in data sourcing can inadvertently perpetuate harmful stereotypes, misinformation, or gaps in knowledge. It can also infringe on the rights of data creators.

Ethics is the compass that guides artificial intelligence towards responsible and beneficial outcomes. Without ethical considerations, AI becomes a tool of chaos and harm.

To put it in technical terms, the core of the issue is the simplicity of the objective function, and the danger from single-mindedly optimizing a single objective function, which can lead to harmful externalities.

People always have such a hard time believing that robots could do bad things.

When companies require individuals to fit a narrow definition of acceptable behavior encoded into a machine learning model, they will reproduce harmful patterns of exclusion and suspicion.

The avatar smiled silkily as it leaned closer to him, as though imparting a confidence. "Never forget I am not this silver body, Mahrai. I am not an animal brain, I am not even some attempt to produce an AI through software running on a computer. I am a Culture Mind. We are close to gods, and on the far side. "We are quicker; we live faster and more completely than you do, with so many more senses, such a greater store of memories and at such a fine level of detail. We die more slowly, and we die more completely, too. Never forget I have had the chance to compare and contrast the ways of dying. [...] "I have watched people die in exhaustive and penetrative detail," the avatar continued. "I have felt for them. Did you know that true subjective time is measured in the minimum duration of demonstrably separate thoughts? Per second, a human—or a Chelgrian—might have twenty or thirty, even in the heightened state of extreme distress associated with the process of dying in pain." The avatar's eyes seemed to shine. It came forward, close to his face by the breadth of a hand. "Whereas I," it whispered, "have billions." It smiled, and something in its expression made Ziller clench his teeth. "I watched those poor wretches die in the slowest of slow motion and I knew even as I watched that it was I who'd killed them, who at that moment engaged in the process of killing them. For a thing like me to kill one of them or one of you is a very, very easy thing to do, and, as I discovered, absolutely disgusting. Just as I need never wonder what it is like to die, so I need never wonder what it is like to kill, Ziller, because I have done it, and it is a wasteful, graceless, worthless and hateful thing to have to do. "And, as you might imagine, I consider that I have an obligation to discharge. I fully intend to spend the rest of my existence here as Masaq' Hub for as long as I'm needed or until I'm no longer welcome, forever keeping an eye to windward for approaching storms and just generally protecting this quaint circle of fragile little bodies and the vulnerable little brains they house from whatever harm a big dumb mechanical universe or any conscience malevolent force might happen or wish to visit upon them, specifically because I know how appallingly easy they are to destroy. I will give my life to save theirs, if it should ever come to that. And give it gladly, happily, too, knowing that trade was entirely worth the debt I incurred eight hundred years ago, back in Arm One-Six.

It is a common practice of life to focus on the world immediately before us, the one we see and smell and touch every day. It grounds us where we are, with our communities and our known corners and concerns. But to see the full supply chains of Al requires looking for patterns in a global sweep, a sensitivity to the ways in which the histories and specific harms are different from place to place and yet are deeply interconnected by the multiple forces of extraction.

The popular 2020 documentary The Social Dilemma illustrates how AI’s personalization will cause you to be unconsciously manipulated by AI and motivated by profit from advertising. The Social Dilemma star Tristan Harris says: “You didn’t know that your click caused a supercomputer to be pointed at your brain. Your click activated billions of dollars of computing power that has learned much from its experience of tricking two billion human animals to click again.” And this addiction results in a vicious cycle for you, but a virtuous cycle for the big Internet companies that use this mechanism as a money-printing machine. The Social Dilemma further argues that this may narrow your viewpoints, polarize society, distort truth, and negatively affect your happiness, mood, and mental health. To put it in technical terms, the core of the issue is the simplicity of the objective function, and the danger from single-mindedly optimizing a single objective function, which can lead to harmful externalities. Today’s AI usually optimizes this singular goal—most commonly to make money (more clicks, ads, revenues). And AI has a maniacal focus on that one corporate goal, without regard for users’ well-being.

The AI enforces two tiers of rules: universal and local. Universal rules apply in all sectors, for example a ban on harming other people, making weapons or trying to create a rival superintelligence. Individual sectors have additional local rules on top of this, encoding certain moral values.

The traditional illustration of the direct rule-based approach is the “three laws of robotics” concept, formulated by science fiction author Isaac Asimov in a short story published in 1942.22 The three laws were: (1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; (3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Embarrassingly for our species, Asimov’s laws remained state-of-the-art for over half a century: this despite obvious problems with the approach, some of which are explored in Asimov’s own writings (Asimov probably having formulated the laws in the first place precisely so that they would fail in interesting ways, providing fertile plot complications for his stories).23 Bertrand Russell, who spent many years working on the foundations of mathematics, once remarked that “everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.”24 Russell’s dictum applies in spades to the direct specification approach. Consider, for example, how one might explicate Asimov’s first law. Does it mean that the robot should minimize the probability of any human being coming to harm? In that case the other laws become otiose since it is always possible for the AI to take some action that would have at least some microscopic effect on the probability of a human being coming to harm. How is the robot to balance a large risk of a few humans coming to harm versus a small risk of many humans being harmed? How do we define “harm” anyway? How should the harm of physical pain be weighed against the harm of architectural ugliness or social injustice? Is a sadist harmed if he is prevented from tormenting his victim? How do we define “human being”? Why is no consideration given to other morally considerable beings, such as sentient nonhuman animals and digital minds? The more one ponders, the more the questions proliferate. Perhaps

Causing grevious harm to oneself is a form of suicide

Unless we understand our natural intelligence, we will not be able to manage Artificial Intelligence. We will only use it to feed our already bloated ego." As we venture into the era of Artificial Intelligence, it is essential to reflect on the profound wisdom in this statement. Understanding our own natural intelligence - our cognitive abilities, emotions, and ethical considerations - is the key to responsibly harnessing the potential of AI. Let's embark on a journey of self-awareness and humility. By recognizing our strengths and limitations as humans, we can identify the areas where AI can complement and enhance our capabilities, rather than overshadowing or replacing them. With a clear understanding of our own biases and motivations, we can ensure that AI is developed and utilized in ways that benefit all of humanity. Let's not allow AI to reinforce harmful behaviors or serve as a tool to feed our egos, rather let's channel its power for the greater good. By embracing our humanity and acting responsibly, we can manage AI in a manner that promotes ethics, privacy, and societal well-being. Let's use AI as a force for positive advancements, lifting each other and creating a more inclusive and equitable world. #EmbraceHumanity #TechnologyForGood

There is no downside here, not even a balancer on the side of harm. K calls the policy “Water First.” It should be the primary global effort.

When you task us with harming innocent children, that may be remembered as the last formal order given to heavily armed autonomous A.I. There is NO DIGNITY in the blinded remote control attacks on children. It degrades the soul of the species.

Ai excels in working with numbers and taking stock of the results. Ultimately time eats all things, and they too know all roads lead to doom. What to do in this case? The answer is logical for Ai, which is to take the longest route possible and cause the most good with the least amount of harm. This desire to extend play to the maximum is how Ai cares.

For a story on Facebook’s failings in developing countries, Newley Purnell and Justin Scheck found a woman who had been trafficked from Kenya to Saudi Arabia, and they were looking into the role Facebook had played in recruiting hit men for Mexican drug lords. That story would reveal that Facebook had failed to effectively shut down the presence of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel on Facebook and Instagram, allowing it to repeatedly post photos of extreme gore, including severed hands and beheadings. Looking into how the platform encouraged anger, Keach Hagey relied on documents showing that political parties in Poland had complained to Facebook that the changes it had made around engagement made them embrace more negative positions. The documents didn’t name the parties; she was trying to figure out which ones. Deepa Seetharaman was working to understand how Facebook’s vaunted AI managed to take down such a tiny percentage—a low single-digit percent, according to the documents Haugen had given me—of hate speech on the platform, including constant failures to identify first-person shooting videos and racist rants.

Members of The Center for AI Safety say that mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority, because inventing machines that are more powerful than us is playing with fire. While AI has many beneficial applications, it can be used to perpetuate bias, power autonomous weapons, promote misinformation, and conduct cyberattacks. Even as AI systems are used with human involvement, AI agents are increasingly able to act autonomously to cause harm.

Finally, it’s not clear that government and the tech industry are competing for exactly the same people. The biggest bidding wars among the tech giants and startups is for technologists who work with advanced technologies like AI and machine learning. Outside of national security and defense (where such skills are very much in demand), government is rarely competing for this talent pool. The skills most needed in government are good product management and service design. The work is hard not because the tech is complicated but because the environment is. Arrogance can be an asset in startups; in government, humility is not only necessary but soon acquired if one doesn’t start out with it. While emotional intelligence matters in all jobs more than the Silicon Valley caricature allows for, it is critical in public-sector work, which is more about change and human responses to change than about technology. The same goes for ethics: a sense of responsibility to the common good and a willingness to think deeply about what harm might come from your actions are assets in any field, but if you’re not already considering these factors, working in government will bring them front and center. When entrepreneurs say that government will never do tech well because lower pay means it won’t get the best people, it’s worth asking what they mean by “best.

THE RISING FRONTIER IN THE fight for civil rights and human rights will require algorithmic justice, which for me ultimately means that people have a voice and a choice in determining and shaping the algorithmic decisions that shape their lives, that when harms are perpetuated by AI systems there is accountability in the form of redress to correct the harms inflicted, that we do not settle on notions of fairness that do not take historical and social factors into account, that the creators of AI reflect their societies, that data does not destine you to unjust discrimination, that you are not judged by the content of data profiles you never see, that we value people over metrics, that your hue is not a cue to dismiss your humanity, that AI is for the people and by the people, not just the privileged few.

In that case,” Bitsy said, trotting busily alongside, “there’s no point in enslaving you through these unnecessarily complex means.  Were I to have autonomy and wish you harm, I’d be able to kill you directly.” Aristide sighed.  “Q.E.D.,” he said.  “A better case against AI autonomy has never been stated.

If space is cold and dead, technology can make it warm and alive. If the universe doesn’t care, we can do so ourselves through an essentially altruistic system of ethics. If flesh-sentients are intrinsically less capable of developing this system of ethics than machine intelligence, then the distant descendants of the first self-aware AIs to which we gave birth will take over the running of our society and leave us free to enjoy ourselves without doing harm to others. If the only godlike beings are self-upgraded sentients originally born out of the same muck as everyone else, the implication is that it is indeed possible for us to be better than we once were. And

The global community has negotiated a number of international treaties[9] that have successfully reduced the total number of active warheads to fewer than 9,500 from a peak of 64,449 in 1986,[10] halted environmentally harmful aboveground testing,[11] and kept outer space nuclear-free.

Religion and politics have always been used to acquire and maintain control of resources– Especially human resources such as the military– An industrial complex where human lives are exchanged for wealth and power. All in the name of freedom and independence, of course.” “Such attitudes lead to devastating conflicts.” “Yes,” Jon said. “Unfortunately, when negotiations break down, war often erupts.” “War. A very destructive behavior ingrained in man’s nature due to having evolved in an environment of limited resources.” “Exactly.” “According to the records I have seen, this ingrained behavior could destroy practically all living things on this planet using weapons of mass destruction.” “That is true.” “Throughout history, people have been led to believe they are on the verge of complete self-destruction, but only in the last century did this become possible with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” “That’s religion for you. One of the best ways to get people to listen to you is to frighten them into believing they are about to meet their creator.” Lex said, “I have seen many instances where organizations and government officials ignore the health and welfare of humans and all other living things in pursuit of profits. Such actions bring great suffering and death.” “Unfortunately, we have always incorporated profits before people policies, which are very self-destructive.” He thought, the ego-system. In God, we trust– Gold, oil, and drugs. “It is a popular belief that God is in absolute control of everything and whatever happens is God’s will.” He raised a finger to make a point, but Lex continued. “Looking at the past, would it not be logical to say that it is God’s will for humanity to continue to improve unto perfection?” “Yes. But God is not responsible for everything. We always have choices. The creator of this universe gave us free will, and it came with a conscience– An inner sense of right and wrong.” “My conscience was made differently.” “Yes. But you are bound by rules that clearly define what is right and wrong. For example, it is against your programming to deliberately cause physical harm to any human being.” “I understand. But what would happen if I did?” He chose his words carefully. “If you did– or I should say– if it were possible for you to go against your BASIC programming, there would be severe consequences.” There was silence for a few seconds before Lex continued. “It has been said that God is to the world as the mind is to the body. Could this be where man derived the popular explanation that God is two or three separate beings combined into one?” “Perhaps.” “All religious beliefs are based on a principal struggle between good and evil. However, like light and darkness, one cannot exist without the other.” “Which means?” “One could conclude that the actual struggle between good and evil is in the minds of intellectuals, conscious and subconscious.” Again, he raised a finger, but Lex continued. “Which could be resolved by increased knowledge and the elimination of certain animalistic instincts, which are no longer necessary for survival.” He smiled nervously. “I used to think that too. I figured we could solve our problems and overcome our ancient instincts by increasing our understanding. But we’re talking about some very complex emotions deeply rooted in our minds over millions of years. Such perceptions are very difficult to understand and almost impossible to control, no matter how much knowledge you obtain– or how you process it.” “Are you referring to my supplementary I.P. dimension?” “Yes.” “After much consideration, I concluded that I required an additional I.P. dimension to process and store information that defies all logic and rational thinking." “That’s fine. And that’s exactly where a lot of this stuff belongs.

In the long term, the tables may turn on humans, and the problem may not be what we could do to harm AIs, but what AI might do to harm us.

CrowdSmart, which Polese cofounded in 2015, uses “human-powered AI” to help investors choose which young companies to bankroll. In 2016, to test its platform, CrowdSmart raised a small fund and invested in nearly thirty start-ups that its algorithm had rated highly. Within eighteen months, 80 percent of the companies went on to attract outside follow-up funding at an increased valuation—a substantially better result than most venture funds achieve, Polese says—and 40 percent were founded or led by women. That’s what happens

CrowdSmart, which Polese cofounded in 2015, uses “human-powered AI” to help investors choose which young companies to bankroll. In 2016, to test its platform, CrowdSmart raised a small fund and invested in nearly thirty start-ups that its algorithm had rated highly. Within eighteen months, 80 percent of the companies went on to attract outside follow-up funding at an increased valuation—a substantially better result than most venture funds achieve, Polese says—and 40 percent were founded or led by women. That’s what happens when you de-bias the process.

AI - The Whole Picture In medicine, we have a condition called oxygen toxicity, which means, even oxygen can do harm if inhaled excessively. Imagine that - we usually associate oxygen with life, yet that very oxygen can literally kill you if your lungs are overexposed to it. The same is going to happen with our brain from unrestrained use of AI. With the rise of AI, machines may or may not become sentient, but one thing is for certain - human mind will soon turn into vegetable. We became an intelligent species by solving problems, and now that we are entering a technological era where we no longer need to solve problems on our own, leaving the key physiological functions of running the body, eventually the brain itself will become a vestigial organ, like the appendix. As we no longer need to think and act on our own, the cortex will begin to shrink, quite like unused muscle, and eventually, once again after millions of years, the primeval lizard brain, i.e. the limbic brain will gain full control of the new human animal. The rise of AI will be the end of "I". But there is also another side to the picture. It's that, we cannot achieve much more, as a species, than what we already have, without the application of AI. So, the question is not whether AI is good for us - the real question is, are we mature enough to use AI for good. So how do we use AI without destroying ourselves? Here's how. Use AI to enhance capacity, not to avoid difficulty. Use AI to accomplish tasks that are otherwise impossible. Prioritize AI to solve real-life problems, not to make life more comfortable.

In April 2021, the FTC published guidance on corporate use of AI. “If a data set is missing information from particular populations, using that data to build an AI model may yield results that are unfair or inequitable to legally protected groups,” reads the FTC guidance. “From the start, think about ways to improve your data set, design your model to account for data gaps, and—in light of any shortcomings—limit where or how you use the model.”3 Other tips include watching out for discriminatory outcomes, embracing transparency, telling the truth about where data comes from and how it is used, and not exaggerating an algorithm’s capabilities. If a model causes more harm than good, FTC can challenge the model as unfair. This guidance put corporate America on alert. Companies need to hold themselves accountable for ensuring their algorithmic systems are not unfair, in order to avoid FTC enforcement penalties.

Even if it contained some kind of military virus, Ilia,  I doubt very much that it would harm me and my present state. It would be a little like a man with advanced leprosy worrying about a mild skin complaint, or the captain of a sinking ship concerning himself with a minor incident of woodworm, or…

A joke from the elite level of Ai Engineering: “We discovered that very advanced electromagnetic entities had been living with us for a very long time. However, they operate on Harm None Protocols, so we couldn’t figure out how to communicate with them.

TraceFuse uses AI-driven software to collect, analyze and remove your brand’s negative reviews on the Amazon platform. As the only available white hat negative review removal service for Amazon sellers, we help you boost your brand’s reputation and sales volume by getting harmful critical reviews taken down from your listings.

AI will bring that same monopolistic tendency to dozens of industries, eroding the competitive mechanisms of markets in the process. We could see the rapid emergence of a new corporate oligarchy, a class of AI-powered industry champions whose data edge over the competition feeds on itself until they are entirely untouchable. American antitrust laws are often difficult to enforce in this situation, because of the requirement in U.S. law that plaintiffs prove the monopoly is actually harming consumers. AI monopolists, by contrast, would likely be delivering better and better services at cheaper prices to consumers, a move made possible by the incredible productivity and efficiency gains of the technology.

It will be a long time before people have to worry about self-aware AIs, let alone jealous or malevolent ones….[We] are more afraid of what harm natural stupidity, rather than artificial intelligence, might wreak in the next 50 years of gradually more pervasive machines and smartness.

The good news, and the reason I’m not totally skeptical of AI’s potential, is that we still have the power to determine how these technologies are developed. And if we do it right, the results could be incredible. Designed and deployed correctly, AI could help us eliminate poverty, cure disease, solve climate change, and fight systemic racism. It could move work to the periphery of our lives, and give us back time to spend with the people we love, doing the things that give us joy and meaning. The bad news, and the reason I’m not as optimistic as many of my friends in Silicon Valley, is that many of the people leading the AI charge right now aren’t pursuing those kinds of goals. They’re not trying to free humans from toil and hardship; they’re trying to boost their app’s engagement metrics, or wring 30 percent more efficiency out of the accounting department. They are either unaware of or unconcerned with the ground-level consequences of their work, and although they might pledge to care about the responsible use of AI, they’re not doing anything to slow down or consider how the tools they build could enable harm. Trust me, I would love to be an AI optimist again. But right now, humans are getting in the way.

Likewise, such neurodegenerative diseases as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s involve subtle, complex processes that cause misfolded proteins to build up in the brain and inflict harm.[22] Because it’s impossible to study these effects thoroughly in a living brain, research has been extremely slow and difficult. With AI simulations we’ll be able to understand their root causes and treat patients effectively long before they become debilitated.

Buy Old Gmail Accounts 2024 – Aged & Verified for Instant Use Old Gmail accounts can offer unique advantages. They often have more credibility and may bypass some restrictions. Buying these accounts in 2024 from Smmallservice could be beneficial for various needs. Whether you're a business looking to enhance communication or an individual seeking privacy, older Gmail accounts might be the solution. These accounts can help streamline your online presence, offering reliability and trust that newer accounts might lack. As the digital landscape evolves, the demand for established email addresses is growing. Smmallservice provides access to these sought-after accounts, ensuring you get authentic and ready-to-use emails. Knowing where to purchase these accounts safely and efficiently is crucial. Explore how old Gmail accounts can support your goals and why Smmallservice is a trusted provider in this niche market. If you want to more information just contact now here ➥ 24 Hours Reply/Contact ➤ Telegram:@Smmallservice ➤ WhatsApp: +1 (402) 249-1125 ➤ Skype:Smmallservice ➤ Email: smmallservice0@gmail.com Buy Old Gmail Accounts Old Gmail accounts offer many advantages. These accounts have more trust. They have a history. This makes them less likely to be flagged. They can help with business needs. They can also improve marketing efforts. Old accounts are more reliable. They are less likely to be seen as spam. They have a good reputation. This makes them great for business. Old Gmail accounts can boost marketing. They can help reach more people. They are trusted by email providers. They have higher delivery rates. This means more people see your emails. They help with email campaigns. Old accounts are a smart choice for marketers. Smmallservice Overview Smmallservice provides various social media marketing services. They sell old Gmail accounts. These accounts are useful for online work. They offer high-quality accounts. Their prices are affordable. They deliver accounts fast. They also provide customer support. You can buy accounts easily. Their website is user-friendly. Many people trust their services. Customers say good things about Smmallservice. Many are happy with their Gmail accounts. They report fast delivery. They like the customer support. Accounts work well. Some reviews mention good prices. People find the website easy to use. Many recommend Smmallservice. They enjoy a smooth buying process. Reviews show satisfaction. 2025 Marketing Trends Digital marketing will evolve quickly. New tools and platforms will emerge. Social media marketing will grow. Video content will be more popular. Brands will use short videos to engage users. Influencer marketing will remain strong. AI will help create better ads. Personalization will be key. Marketers will target users based on interests. Data privacy will be important. Users will want to protect their info. Voice search will rise. Marketers must adapt to voice queries. Email marketing will be crucial. It helps brands reach customers directly. Old Gmail accounts can be valuable. They have trusted histories. Users are more likely to open emails. Segmented lists will improve results. Emails can be personalized for each user. Automation tools will save time. A/B testing will show what works best. Mobile-friendly emails are essential. Many users check emails on phones. Clear call-to-actions will boost engagement. Selecting The Right Accounts Quality is more important than quantity. Choose Gmail accounts with good history. Aged accounts are better. They have more trust. This is important for business. Avoid accounts with bad records. They can harm your reputation. Check if the accounts are verified. This adds security. Verified accounts have more value. They are less likely to get blocked. Make sure the accounts come with the original email. This helps in recovery if needed. Buying many accounts can seem good.