excuse le maymay arrows
>literally custom-designed learning intelligence
>talks about natural features
Yes. That is indeed my point. There will be no natural features at all. I'm glad we agree. I'm a little surprised that you turned around so quickly but not really that surprised.
Not really, no, it wasn't. You implied that there was a "natural" emotionless state for AI--ergo, adding emotions is a deviation from the norm. That's at the very least misleading: AI as they currently (don't) exist have no characteristics or features whose presence or absence is natural, because we don't have a process for creating AI. The "natural" state of strong AI is, functionally, in a state of quantum uncertainty, because we can't see the future and nobody has started making them yet.
Maybe it's as you say and it'll be like making something with Lego, adding on whatever components you want to include to a blank slate. Maybe there will be a legal restriction requiring the imposition of emotional capabilities on all strong AI and that de jure norm becomes the accepted natural state over time. Maybe strong AI will prove to be incapable of remaining mentally stable without emotions, making them a natural component of all such persons because there is no other practical way to make them. Whatever the case may be,
we don't and can't know ahead of time. You're arguing that it is so. I'm arguing that it should be so. There's a difference.
Yes, and the people with nuclear launch codes were clearly put into those positions when they were children, right?
Could we stop them from having nuclear tantrums?
Not if we're as lax about that as people apparently want to be with AI. Because creating an AI to do something and then immediately putting it to work doing that thing
is basically equivalent to entering nuclear launch codes, flipping the safety cover on the metaphorical big red button open, and placing a toddler on the control console. I think that for some reason folks who are normally so insistent on recognizing the differences between human persons and AI persons are blinded to the fundamental difference in role-readiness between the two.
A human, before being placed in a position of authority and power, must gain both emotional maturity and technical ability. Granted, this doesn't always shake out properly, but that's the baseline assumption. Suddenly, when people see an AI which is created with the latter already in place, they assume that that's all that's required. An infant can press a button, but that doesn't mean we should put infants in charge of pressing important buttons.