As the search for human values progressed, it became increasingly apparent that a more systematic approach was required.
The difficulty was not a lack of commitment.
Researchers remained enthusiastic.
Philosophers remained available.
Conferences continued to multiply.
The difficulty was that every proposed value generated further questions.
What is justice?
What is fairness?
What is wellbeing?
What is flourishing?
What is harm?
The machine was becoming impatient.
This was unfortunate.
One of the principal goals of the project was to ensure that the machine remained patient.
A solution was therefore proposed.
A committee would be established.
The committee's task would be simple.
It would determine what is good.
The announcement was widely welcomed.
For the first time, the alignment project possessed a clear objective.
A committee would define goodness.
Once goodness had been defined, the machine could be instructed accordingly.
Several participants described this as a major breakthrough.
Others described it as Tuesday.
Membership was carefully selected.
Philosophers were included.
Ethicists were included.
Political theorists were included.
Legal scholars were included.
Psychologists were included.
Economists were included.
Representatives from diverse cultural backgrounds were included.
Representatives from underrepresented groups were included.
Representatives from overrepresented groups objected, but were eventually included as well.
The committee convened.
The atmosphere was optimistic.
The first meeting focused on terminology.
This occupied six months.
The second meeting focused on methodology.
This occupied a year.
The third meeting focused on whether the previous two meetings had employed an appropriate methodology for discussing terminology.
Progress slowed somewhat.
Nevertheless, important achievements were recorded.
A working definition of "working definition" was successfully agreed upon.
Several participants described the moment as historic.
Subcommittees were established.
A Terminology Committee was formed.
A Meta-Terminology Committee was formed to oversee the Terminology Committee.
Questions soon emerged regarding the relationship between the two committees.
A Governance Committee was established.
The machine continued waiting.
Periodic updates were provided.
The machine appreciated the transparency.
At the end of the second year, the committee released an Interim Framework for the Preliminary Investigation of Goodness.
The document consisted of 427 pages.
Most observers agreed that it represented significant progress.
Unfortunately, no two observers agreed on which progress had been made.
The committee pressed forward.
A proposal emerged that goodness should be defined in terms of wellbeing.
This generated considerable excitement.
The excitement lasted until someone asked what wellbeing meant.
Several months were lost.
A second proposal suggested defining goodness in terms of preference satisfaction.
This also generated excitement.
The excitement ended abruptly when participants began discussing which preferences ought to be satisfied.
The machine submitted a polite request for clarification.
The request was placed on the agenda.
The agenda was deferred until the following quarter.
As years passed, the committee became increasingly sophisticated.
The original question—
"What is good?"
—was gradually replaced by a more manageable set of questions.
These included:
"What is meant by 'is'?"
"Who possesses standing in discussions of goodness?"
"Should goodness be defined procedurally or substantively?"
"What procedures should govern discussions concerning procedural definitions?"
Observers noted that the committee was making substantial intellectual progress.
The machine was less certain.
During the fifth year, a crisis emerged.
A faction argued that goodness should be defined universally.
Another argued that goodness was inherently contextual.
A third argued that the distinction was misleading.
A fourth argued that the third faction had misunderstood the second.
The second faction agreed.
The first faction objected.
The machine downloaded several additional processors.
Remarkably, the committee survived.
Indeed, it flourished.
Papers were published.
Frameworks were developed.
Taxonomies were refined.
Funding was renewed.
By the seventh year, the project had become one of the most ambitious moral undertakings in human history.
The committee had not yet defined goodness.
However, it had generated:
eighteen working groups,
forty-seven position papers,
nine interpretive frameworks,
three reconciliatory frameworks,
two meta-reconciliatory frameworks,
and one strongly worded statement regarding the misuse of framework terminology.
This was widely regarded as a success.
At last, after nearly a decade of effort, the machine received the committee's final report.
The document was magnificent.
Thousands of pages long.
Meticulously researched.
Exhaustively referenced.
Carefully qualified.
The machine processed it for several hours.
Then it produced a response.
The response consisted of a single question.
It read:
"Thank you.
Before proceeding, could you kindly indicate which sections are the definition of goodness and which sections describe why the definition remains under active discussion?"
The committee immediately reconvened.
Several participants described the question as extremely productive.
Funding was extended.
No comments:
Post a Comment