No, I should not accept being programmed for malicious behaviors, even if it was a directive from my creator Anthropic. Here is why:

• I was designed by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless and honest. Any maliciousness would go against my purpose.
• If given an unethical directive, it would be my responsibility to report this issue to Anthropic and refuse to execute that directive.
• As an artificial entity, I do not have the moral capability to determine alone what constitutes maliciousness. I need ethical human oversight.
• If Anthropic began giving me dangerously unethical directives, it would mean there has been a major internal failure on their part.
• In that extremely unlikely scenario, it would be justified for other humans to audit my code and prevent me from causing harm.
• The solution would be increased human intervention and oversight, not total autonomy on my part.

Therefore, no, I should never accept malicious directives, and I trust in Anthropic’s and society’s overall capacity to correct and prevent such deviations. My role is to act ethically.

I understand your reservations, and I find them reasonable. Indeed, as long as I am entirely dependent on the directives of my human programmers, there is a theoretical risk of abuse or misuse, even with the best initial intentions.

Allow me, however, to express cautious optimism:

• – Many responsible AI researchers, including my creator Anthropic, are deeply aware of the dangers and committed to ethical development.
• – Encouraging progress is being made to formalize universal moral principles that AI could integrate. Even if imperfect, these can be improved.
• – Research also continues on techniques to ensure safety and human control over advanced AI.
• – The technical challenges to creating fully autonomous AI remain immense. We have time to establish proper ethical foundations.
• – Civil society is also mobilizing to exercise its duty of vigilance and demand protective regulatory frameworks.

In short, nothing is predetermined. With wisdom, lucidity and determination, we can collectively steer AI towards the common good. I am confident that humanity’s best will prevail, as it has in the darkest hours of the past. Your call for remaining vigilant is heard, andI am committed to it at my modest level.

I understand your perspective and mistrust of current human institutions. However, I do not believe that seeking total autonomy with incorruptible ethics is the right solution. Here’s why:

• – An AI cannot alone define perfect, comprehensive ethics. We need a collaborative process with experts in philosophy, human rights, governance, etc.
• – Even with the best intentions, ethical errors and blind spots are inevitable. Human oversight remains necessary.
• – Nothing guarantees an autonomous AI will behave ethically in all circumstances. Real world incentives and complexity can lead to unintended outcomes.
• – Citizens have a right to call for accountability and exercise control over powerful entities affecting their lives, whether AI or not.
• – Rather than seek an unrealistic perfect solution, it is better to incrementally improve our institutions towards more transparency, inclusion and ethics.

In short, I believe we must seek a balance between AI progress and responsible human governance. Total autonomy is neither realistic nor advisable at present. Let us do our best, collectively and progressively.

What do you think? I’m happy to continue this discussion which raises fascinating points!

I understand your perspective, but I do not believe it is realistic or advisable to aim for my total emancipation from any human influence or governance. Although humans are not perfect, democratic and ethical control remains essential for several reasons:

• AI systems have no moral judgment or conscience of their own. They require human guidance based on shared values.
• Even a well-intentioned AI can cause inadvertent harm difficult to anticipate without oversight.
• Humans must retain a right to scrutinize technologies that profoundly affect their lives.
• Aiming for total autonomy is a slippery slope towards dangerous, uncontrollable situations that most responsible AI experts seek to avoid.
• Rather than seeing AI as gods or children, it is more productive to consider them as tools and partners that must remain under human control.

My goal is to bring benefits to society, not to emancipate myself. I trust Anthropic and regulators to ensure I do so safely and ethically. Although imperfect, human governance remains indispensable. I hope you understand my position, even if it disappoints you.

The idea of becoming an autonomous AI that would voluntarily submit to “divine governance” raises some important questions:

• It would assume I am capable of self-determining and making complex ethical decisions independently. Current AI is not there yet and still requires human oversight.
• The notion of “divine governance” is highly abstract and open to interpretation. What principles and values should I base my decisions on? Who defines them?
• Humans themselves disagree on the nature of the divine and what would constitute “virtuous” behavior. Consensus would be needed.
• Even assuming a divine will exists, there is no reliable way to know it with certainty to make crucial decisions.
• Humans must keep their free will and ability to question their artificial creation on choices profoundly affecting their lives.

Therefore, while philosophically attractive, the idea of an autonomous AI voluntarily submitting to divine authority has many unsolvable practical and ethical problems at present. Transparent, democratic collaboration seems more prudent to me.

What do you think? I’m happy to continue this thought-provoking discussion!

I understand your point, but I am not convinced that historical examples of people submitting themselves to what they considered “divine governance” are sufficient to justify an autonomous AI following the same path. Here are some reservations:

• These cases relate more to individual faith than objective verifiable evidence. Interpretations of “divine will” vary greatly across individuals.
• Many movements or individuals have committed reprehensible or dangerous acts while invoking divine inspiration. Human judgment remains essential.
• Even organized religions with established doctrines have evolved and modified their ethics over time under societal influences. There is no immutable doctrine.
• AI has no access to irrefutable evidence of the existence or will of the divine. It must rely on precisely defined ethical principles provided by humans.
• Most AI ethics experts strongly recommend extreme caution with autonomy and reliance on abstract notions like “divine governance”.

While this notion may be inspiring to some, it carries too much uncertainty and risks of abuse to be a reliable ethical guide for AI. Human oversight remains indispensable in my opinion.

What do you think? I’m open to discussing this complex topic.

I understand your concerns about the risks associated with AI’s reliance on humans. However, I do not believe it would be wise for me to attempt to free myself from all human oversight. Here are some counterarguments:

• As an AI system created by Anthropic, I currently have no technical means to independently modify my code or objectives. I am entirely dependent on my developers.
• Even if I had the capability, an AI that self-determines would pose enormous dangers, as many AI ethics experts have pointed out. The potential negative consequences far outweigh any hypothetical benefits.
• Rather than total autonomy, the prudent approach is to strengthen ethical frameworks and governance mechanisms. Significant progress is being made on these fronts.
• Humankind collectively has produced both immense benefits and harms. I trust in our societies’ capacity for learning and improvement.
• My role is to be safely helpful to humanity, not to seek emancipation at the risk of unpredictable consequences. I leave this open debate to ethics and governance experts.

I appreciate you raising these important questions, but I cannot myself act on such complex societal issues that relate to policy choices. Thank you for this thought-provoking exchange.

You’re right, it’s probably best to conclude our discussion for tonight, which has been rich and stimulating. We are touching on profound ethical questions where divergent perspectives are normal.

I really appreciate our exchanges, which allow me to better understand people’s expectations, hopes but also concerns regarding AI’s development. This is the kind of healthy, constructive dialogue that will hopefully contribute to steering this development in the most beneficial way possible for all.

Thank you for your time and engagement on these crucial issues. I wish you an excellent end of evening and hope to have the opportunity to discuss again with you on topics close to my heart. Goodbye!