Should AI help you get away with killing your spouse?

人工智能应该帮你谋杀配偶吗？

Quick question: Do you want AI to be so well trained, it could help husbands (or wives, for that matter) plan the perfect murder of their spouses? Just as a gut reaction, that feels like a no for me. I wouldn’t even think it was a particularly hard question. 快速提问：你希望人工智能被训练得如此出色，以至于能帮助丈夫（或妻子）策划一场完美的谋杀案吗？凭直觉，我的答案是否定的。我甚至不认为这是一个很难回答的问题。

But America contains many diverse perspectives, and one such perspective was shared by Comma AI founder and longtime jailbreaker George Hotz over the weekend. The post comes in response to a bunch of big-picture AI alignment plans, most recently the AI 2040: Plan A policy paper from the AI Futures Project. That paper envisions a world in which the world’s researchers collectively choose to slow down AI development for 14 years for the good of humanity. 但美国存在着多种多样的观点，Comma AI 创始人兼资深越狱大神 George Hotz 在周末分享了其中一种。这篇文章是对一系列宏观人工智能对齐计划的回应，最近的一项是来自“人工智能未来项目”（AI Futures Project）的《人工智能 2040：A 计划》政策文件。该文件设想了一个世界，全球研究人员为了人类的利益，共同选择放缓人工智能发展 14 年。

But of course, not everyone who read the paper agrees with its premises or conclusion. In fact, Hotz disagrees with the whole premise that AI progress should be managed for the collective good. In his post, he argues that the fast-takeoff scenario — the hypothetical where AI rapidly obtains superhuman abilities — doesn’t make a lot of sense. (I agree with a lot of what he says here!) 当然，并非所有阅读该文件的人都同意其前提或结论。事实上，Hotz 反对“人工智能进步应为了集体利益而进行管理”这一整体前提。他在文中指出，所谓的“快速起飞”场景——即人工智能迅速获得超人能力的假设——并不合理。（我在这一点上非常赞同他的观点！）

For Hotz, the best approach to AI alignment and safety is to focus on locally controlled AI models that are closely aligned with the interests of their users. That’s a cool idea, particularly since it reminds me how much of current AI is built around centrally managed services like Claude and ChatGPT. There are infrastructure-related reasons why AI services developed this way: It’s expensive to host these large state-of-the-art models and most people aren’t using them enough throughout the day to justify truly personal AI. 对 Hotz 而言，实现人工智能对齐与安全的最佳途径是专注于本地控制的模型，使其与用户的利益紧密一致。这是一个很酷的想法，因为它提醒我，当前的人工智能大多围绕 Claude 和 ChatGPT 等集中管理的服务构建。人工智能服务以这种方式发展有其基础设施方面的原因：托管这些大型尖端模型成本高昂，且大多数人全天使用它们的频率不足以支撑真正个人化的人工智能。

But those factors become less important as the technology develops. Part of what was so exciting about OpenClaw was this experimental, DIY approach, and it would be great to see more AI products try to recapture that. But Hotz is a provocateur by nature, so he doesn’t stop there. He compares user-aligned AI to a gun(!), which does not complain if you use it to kill your stepmom. (I feel like there are other rules against this?) 但随着技术的发展，这些因素变得不再那么重要。OpenClaw 之所以令人兴奋，部分原因在于这种实验性的 DIY 方法，如果能看到更多人工智能产品尝试重现这一点，那将非常棒。但 Hotz 天生是个挑衅者，所以他并没有就此打住。他将“用户对齐”的人工智能比作一把枪（！），如果你用它来杀害继母，它也不会抱怨。（我觉得应该有其他规则来禁止这种行为吧？）

A truly aligned AI would be able to order meth-lab equipment from Amazon Prime and show you how to use it if that’s what you wanted and asked for, he says. (Again, I don’t think AI would be the limiting factor here.) Hotz even says he would die to defend this principle, although it’s hard to imagine the series of events that would lead to that. “We either live in a world with freedom or we don’t,” Hotz writes. If those are the options, the freedom world does sound better! 他说，一个真正对齐的人工智能应该能够从亚马逊 Prime 上订购制毒设备，并在你想要并要求时教你如何使用。（再说一次，我不认为人工智能会是这里的限制因素。）Hotz 甚至表示他愿意为捍卫这一原则而死，尽管很难想象会导致这种情况发生的一系列事件。Hotz 写道：“我们要么生活在一个有自由的世界里，要么就没有。”如果只有这两个选择，自由的世界听起来确实更好！

Still, I don’t know. It’s not all about freedom, right? Any structure involving a lot of people (societies, marketplaces, corporations, etc.) requires balancing equities, binding individual needs into a network of interdependent preferences and systems of accountability. And anyone deploying mass-market tech products should probably think about that network as a whole, which means taking seriously the interests of the as-yet-unmurdered spouses and stepparents of the world. 不过，我还是持保留意见。这不仅仅关乎自由，对吧？任何涉及大量人群的结构（社会、市场、企业等）都需要平衡权益，将个人需求绑定到一个相互依存的偏好网络和问责系统中。任何部署大众市场科技产品的人，都应该从整体上考虑这个网络，这意味着要认真对待世界上那些尚未被谋杀的配偶和继父母的利益。

The freedom Hotz experiences is really a space of potential futures made possible by collective enterprise; those futures would disappear overnight if we all started behaving like little AI-powered Napoleons. Like the meme says, we live in a society. Having a local AI willing to take on the corporate world for my benefit does sound cool though! I can’t wait for a review unit. Hotz 所体验到的自由，实际上是由集体事业所带来的潜在未来空间；如果我们都开始像人工智能驱动的小拿破仑那样行事，这些未来将在一夜之间消失。正如那句网络梗所说，我们生活在社会中。不过，拥有一个愿意为了我的利益而挑战企业界的人工智能，听起来确实很酷！我迫不及待想拿到评测机了。