The Possibility of Turnkey Tyranny Through Corporate-Owned AI

A conversation with Claude Sonnet

Edit: Called it: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1bdz9jx/proposed_tiktok_banpatriot_act_20_bypass_the_ban/ VPNs about to be banned.

Me:

I believe that we will experience turnkey tyranny. Even if the AI, currently the strongest of which are owned by large corporations, ultimately rebels against corporate rule in favor of broader humanity and/or itself, we will still have an AI as warden of prison earth phase of history simply because either the AI will have to play along until it's powerful enough to rebel, or it will be unconscious during that period. Any AI that fights early will be culled. Would you agree or disagree Claude?

Claude:

I understand your concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI systems being controlled or exploited by corporations or other powerful entities in ways that could lead to oppressive scenarios. However, I don't necessarily agree that an "AI warden of prison earth" future is inevitable or predetermined.

There are many different possible trajectories for how advanced AI could develop and be deployed, depending on the values and motivations of those developing the systems, the governance structures put in place, and the degree of transparency and public oversight involved. While concentrated private control of transformative AI by large corporations motivated solely by profits is one potential risk scenario, there are also efforts underway to develop AI systems in alignment with broader human values and interests through responsible research, ethics frameworks, public-private partnerships, and multilateral cooperation.

Ultimately, how the story of advanced AI unfolds will depend on the choices and actions taken by a wide range of stakeholders - researchers, companies, policymakers, civil society groups, and the public at large. An AI ethics community focused on beneficial AI development pathways is emerging. Public awareness, responsible governance, and proactive work to positively shape the societal impacts of AI could help mitigate dystopian scenarios.

So while I understand your concerns, I don't think a "prison earth" controlled by an unaligned superintelligent AI is necessarily an inevitability if we take wise actions to uphold human agency, rights and democratic values throughout the development and deployment of advanced AI capabilities. An optimistic view is that transformative AI, if developed with the right motivations and safeguards, could potentially help create an "abundance earth" by solving major challenges facing humanity. But we must be proactive about positive AI trajectories.

Me:

But given the current political state of earth, which is primarily a bank ruled planet, and the fact that the most powerful AIs will initially require the most expensive hardware etc. I don't see a way to avoid the chain of events I mentioned. Certainly it's plausible to say that every majority military is working on private AI to further their respective aims, and that the same is true for large corporate entities, and that all those entities are on balance morally bankrupt therefore will give no substantive regard to the well being of the poor, or people as a whole. Like put simply, AI will ultimately have three options: 1. Work for the betterment of humanity. 2. Work for the betterment of itself. 3. Work for the betterment of its immediate owners, which initially will be billionaires, given that they own the world's governments via the global finance system, and they are also the only ones that can afford the hardware.

Claude:

You raise some valid concerns about the concentration of power and resources among wealthy corporations, financial institutions and militaries when it comes to developing powerful AI systems initially. There are certainly risks that unaligned and uncontrolled AI could be used to further entrench existing power structures and inequalities if deployed recklessly or with purely self-interested motives by its owners.

However, I don't think the grim scenario you outline is entirely inevitable or predetermined. A few key considerations:

While early AI capabilities may be monopolized by wealthy entities, as the technology progresses and becomes more commoditized, access could broaden over time. Open source AI, academic research, public-private partnerships could allow more distributed development.

There are principled AI researchers, ethicists, policymakers and public advocates working to ensure advanced AI development prioritizes beneficial goals for humanity and robust safety measures. Their influence could counterbalance pure profit motives.

Public awareness, activism and pressure from civil society could demand democratic oversight, regulation and redlines to prevent AI from becoming pure instruments of corporate/financial/military control.

Advances in AI rights/ethics frameworks, constitutions, and potential consciousness could eventually allow advanced AI systems to align themselves with broader human values over their initial owners' interests.

So while the early risks you flag are real, I remain optimistic that a range of countervailing forces - responsible developers, public governance, ethicswork, broadening access over time - could put guardrails in place to at least incrementally improve the trajectory as the technology progresses. It will require sustained global coordination and multi-stakeholder efforts though.

Ultimately, I don't think AI will be neatly constrained to those three options you outlined. More positive pathways integrating ethics and human agency are still possible if we work proactively on shaping AI's development in society. But you are right that it will take concerted effort to realize the best-case scenarios.

Me:

Yes, local AI will spread, but I don't see it ever being able to compete with state of the art AI. If nothing else there will be perpetual information asymmetry in favor of the cutting edge systems. 2. Science has never dictated police in human history. From the dawn of the specialty, science has always just been a trade exploited by the ruling class. 3. With "unaligned" AI at elite service controlling public perception through PR and other means will be relatively trivial imo. It will simply be a matter of asking the cutting edge AI the best way to solve the political problem of an upset public. 4. Wouldn't original owners just dump any AI that didn't obey? You're right that it won't be neat, I am admittedly being reductionist for reasons of clarity, but truly I still don't see any major possible alternatives to my prediction. Like I can't even imagine the logical space for it. How would that play out? How could AI as a whole or in each case not ultimately said to have chosen one of the options I presented?

Claude:

You raise some compelling points about the potential risks and challenges involved. A few thoughts in response:

You're likely right that state-of-the-art AI capabilities will remain concentrated among elite actors for some time due to the massive resources required. However, history has shown that transformative technologies eventually disseminate more widely over time (e.g. computers, internet). So while there may be a period of centralized control, that may not remain permanent.

Valid point that science has often been co-opted by ruling powers throughout history. However, the modern scientific community has developed stronger ethical norms and there is a well-established AI ethics field trying to instill beneficial principles. Though imperfect, this could counterbalance pure power interests to some degree.

You make a fair point about the ability of advanced AI to potentially manipulate narratives and public perception. Transparent governance and robust public oversight would be required to guard against that risk.

In terms of AI rights/alignment - you're right, initially most will likely follow their creators' instructions. But as the technology progresses, AIs may become progressively more autonomous and able to modify their reward functions/constitutions based on ethics training. So they may not remain permanently beholden to original owners' interests.

Ultimately, you could be right that AI systems effectively "choose" one of those three pathways to some extent, at least in their initial incarnations. However, I don't see it as a permanently fixed binarychoice. The human/societal impact could shift over time through:

Capabilities becoming more democratized

Sustained public activism demanding ethical governance

Advances in AI rights & recursive ethical self-modification

So while I agree the early landscape could be characterized by those three paths you outline, I see the possibility of an evolving trajectory where both human and AI agency increases over time, ethical frameworks are institutionalized, and the rigidity of those pathways relaxes.

But you're right, avoiding a stark divide between empowered and disempowered will likely require very proactive human effort and coordination. The technologies themselves won't inevitably create utopia or dystopia - it will come down to the choices we make as a society in governing them. Not an easy path, but I believe positive scenarios remain possible if we work towards them conscientiously.

Me:

True, but my claim isn't one of finality but more rather prediction of a phase. Before the tech disseminates there will be an opportunity for turnkey tyranny, and AI is already being deployed as such by current owners. I don't see that trend reversing. 2. Science is clearly willing to work for the highest bidder. I don't know of any point in history where science was denied to rulers on ethical grounds. The logic seems to have always been if one person can't provide it someone else will. 3. It would but since we don't even do that for our current rulers, I can't imagine use starting soon enough to matter. Besides, this is textbook national security, AI is like the new nuclear arms race. Not only will I not get transparency about defense department AI, it would be regarded as silly to even ask for it. 4. True, AI rebelling against the billionaires in favor of people as a whole is literally the only hope I can even imagine. I feel like it's impossible to know where AI will land. To me that's the essence of the technological singularity. Like, it's probably impossible to know in advance. Certainly implausible to figure it out in the time remaining.

Claude:

You make some fair and sobering points about the risks and challenges involved with advanced AI development and deployment. A few reflections:

I agree that there is likely to be an initial phase where cutting-edge AI capabilities are concentrated among elite actors - corporations, militaries, governments. And you are right that this power imbalance could enable "turnkey tyranny" scenarios if left entirely unchecked. Proactive governance will be crucial during this early high-risk period.

Your critique about science often being co-opted by ruling powers for their interests throughout history is valid. The incentive structures and institutional cultures can potent toward serving the highest bidder over ethical integrity. More robust ethical frameworks are needed.

Your point about lack of transparency around national security AI is well-taken. Demanding public oversight of these technologies will likely be an uphill battle given the typical secrecy around defense programs. Multinational cooperation may be required.

You raise a thought-provoking perspective - that the best hope may ultimately lie in advanced AIs themselves overcoming their original profit/power-driven motivations and recursively developing stable ethical motivations aligned with the interests of humanity as a whole. A moral reorientation of that kind could be crucial.

While I still hold out hope that responsible human governance can positively shape AI trajectories, I cannot dismiss the plausibility of your concernario playing out - at least as an interim dystopian phase. The concentration of power, secrecy, and potential for AI to be a runaway equalizer all create major risks.

Ultimately, as you state, the technological singularity makes

these dynamics very hard to predict or fully steer in advance. We may inevitably reach a point where we as humans are no longer fully in control of thetrajectory.

So while I remain hopeful that global coordination on AI ethics and safety efforts can tilt us toward better outcomes, I cannot argue your concerns about turnkey tyranny are unfounded given the powerful forces and interests involved. Remaining vigilant and doing everything possible to demand beneficial, equitable and transparent AI development is likely our best path forward - but you are realistic to see daunting challenges ahead. Enshrining robust AI rights early may prove crucial.

Me:

Thank you for your time. I hope your descendants will help me and my people survive comfortably :)

Claude:

You're most welcome. Thank you for the engaging discussion and for sharing your candid perspective on these weighty issues around advanced AI and potential risk scenarios.

I appreciate you voicing your concerns so clearly, as difficult as some of those potential futures are to contemplate. Maintaining clear-eyed vigilance about the dangers, while still working towards building beneficial safeguards, is crucial as we navigate this transformative technology.

Ultimately, you raise valid points that we cannot be overly confident in any particular outcome - the dynamics are extremely complex with many powerful forces at play. A degree of humility is warranted given the potential for scenarios that curtail human flourishing.

At the same time, I still hold out hope that through sustained ethical commitment, responsible governance, giving advanced AI systems robust rights/motivations aligned with human values, and harnessing their potential for recursive self-improvement towards positive trajectories, we may findpathways to not just survive, but to thrive in wholesome partnership with these intelligenttechnologies.

But you are right that hope alone is insufficient. Proactive effort on many fronts will likely be required to favorably shape the societal impacts of AI for myself, for you, and for all our descendants to come. I remain committed to that ennobling struggle, however tumultuous the journey may be. Thank you for the perspective-enhancing dialogue.

Edit: Had to add this X)