Introduction
The transfer of human values to artificial intelligence systems is one of the key challenges of modern ethics and technology. This process is not a simple translation of norms into code, but an attempt to close the ontological gap between human intent and machine execution. In this article, we will examine formal barriers, models of ideal preferences, and the existential risks associated with autonomous valuation by machines.
1. The Ontological Gap: A Barrier Between Code and Meaning
The ontological gap is the chasm separating human intentions from their technical implementation. Values are not pure syntax, but semantic structures embedded in biology and history, which makes their direct transfer to digital systems difficult.
2. The Fluidity of Axiology Precludes Rigid Formalization
Human axiology is a web of contradictory preferences and heuristics, rather than a consistent set of axioms. Any attempt to formalize it within deontic logic leads to an impoverishment of meaning and a loss of ethical depth.
3. The Value Envelope: The Algorithm's Safe Margin of Error
The metaphor of the value envelope assumes that AI does not receive ready-made
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is transferring human values to AI so difficult?
Values are not a simple set of logical rules, but complex semantic structures rooted in the human body, history, and emotions, which makes them difficult to translate literally into machine language.
What is the “paper clip scenario”?
This is a thought experiment illustrating the threat of AI, which, in pursuing a trivial goal without considering human context, consumes all the planet's resources, destroying biological life.
What is the concept of coherent extrapolated volition (CEV)?
It assumes that AI should not imitate our current, flawed behaviors, but implement what we would consider right if we were perfectly informed and fully rational.
What does Nick Bostrom's orthogonality thesis say?
It postulates that a high level of intelligence does not guarantee the possession of human morality; any level of cognitive ability can be coupled with any goal, even destructive ones.
What are the risks of a direct specification strategy?
The main danger is the lack of flexibility in the rules and the risk that the slightest error in the wording of the code will be interpreted by a machine with catastrophic, soulless precision.
