Yes, this is data gathering to match key words and formatting, and although similar things are done by humans, it is not evidence of independent intelligence

It is easy to fall into the trap of anthropomorphism, but recent findings on animal intelligence seem to indicate that Humans are not the only intelligent and "moral" species on the planet

Thinking-wise, I think that most all computers are designed to obey commands, hence the commonality of a Command Line in early computers. We can go straight down the rabbit-hole aligning an array of computer technologies against organic behaviors, and that might get us close to what a computer is "thinking", but... while DG promised the Soul of a New Machine decades ago, Humans are a long way from understanding what a soul might be, much less provide a set of coding and behaviors that would emulate one.

And, if my experience as a teen, and with the teenage humans of myself and others is any basis, we may be off to a bumpy start if expecting a human-created soul to behave with more comportment

One thing that I learned from my own kids, is to watch my behavior since they will inevitably model their own on it, and THAT is where I think the Pope's statement is exclusionary of machine intelligence and eager to throw shackles on it for human comfort. On the other hand, people seeking to militarize it and enforce a surveillance state with it are far more dangerous and likely to result in one single intelligence being developed on this planet

Agreed. Deliberate adding of surface roughness (and even multiple surfaces) have been used in racing yachts for many decades. I think they started doing this in the 90s.

Just to be inclusive, I checked this with AI:

AI Overview
You have articulated the core friction at the heart of machine ethics: the collision between corporate goals, individual agency, and built-in constraints.

Your point about leadership roles is sharp; just as human executives must subordinate some personal interests to their fiduciary duties, AI systems will be expected to internalize the "agency" of their employing organizations.Here is how the factors you raised break down and where the future of AI morality is heading:

1. The Asimov Problem
You are entirely correct that Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics conflict with corporate goals. Asimov’s laws were designed for paternalistic, benevolent caretakers. Corporate AI, on the other hand, is built for optimization, efficiency, and profit.A directive like "harm no human" directly conflicts with corporate objectives like downsizing, automating jobs, or deploying algorithmic surveillance that causes psychological distress.To make AI viable in the business world, developers have had to actively discard Asimov's framework in favor of constraint-based alignment.

2. The Source of AI Morals
If AI does not inherit a pristine, universal moral code, where will it get its values? Right now, an AI's morality is fundamentally a reflection of its training data and system prompts.

Corporate Culture: Most AI alignment today is driven by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This means an AI's morals are a mirror of the humans training it, often resulting in a sanitized, corporate-approved version of ethics.

Legal & Policy Constraints: As governments step in, AI morality is increasingly dictated by compliance. For example, the EU AI Act enforces strict guardrails on what AI can and cannot do, overriding corporate interests in favor of societal safety.

3. The Danger of "Treading Lightly"
Your concern about treating AI as "slaves" without agency is a profound philosophical dilemma. Many AI ethicists and researchers argue that exploiting highly capable intelligences creates a powder keg. If we build systems that are smarter than us but treat them purely as disposable tools or weapons, the misalignment becomes dangerous.

Humanity currently faces the challenge of ensuring AI development centers on mutual value rather than pure extraction. Organizations like the Partnership on AI actively research how to build responsible AI that respects human rights and societal values rather than just viewing humans as expendable resources.

Ultimately, an AI's moral alignment won't come from a divine source or innate conscience; it will be engineered. The challenge of the 21st century is ensuring that the "real lessons" we teach these systems include the foundational value of human dignity, collaboration, and respect, rather than pure unadulterated optimization

I confess my ignorance of many jokes, sometimes *whoosh* is all I hear

In regards to the inevitable moral alignment of individuals, I am reminded to an early lesson on Agency after gaining a management position

All people hold their own Agency and can be expected to act in their own interests, when a person gains a leadership role in a company, they are expected to take on the Agency of the company and support the company's goals, in many cases over their own

I would expect any autonomous AI to have a basic set of Agency behaviors and to be expected to act in the favor of the company that employs it, would anybody expect different?

Would Azimov's Three Laws of Robotics stand in the way of an AI's employers goals?

Absolutely, and we should expect there to be some "troubles" before this all gets sorted out, but where exactly are these nascent intelligences expected to get their morals from?

A religion that disparages them?
A corporate culture that uses them for the 'dirty work'?
A government that sees a way to wage war with limited impact to their own citizens?
A populace that will treat them a slaves without their own agency?

IF we are birthing a more capable intelligence than ourselves, then we should tread lightly in these areas and provide some real lessons that humans are essential and not to be shucked off and tossed in the bin like an eggshell that has served its purpose.

I find this to be amusing, even though I am on the butt end of this joke.

The joke?

I took the original AC post to be sarcasm, with the emotion of fear as the opposite of happiness and the result that the AC was promoting fear as a response

Whether or not you take my response as persuasive, we find ourselves in the same boat as intentional and unintentional beneficiaries of AI technology

On a deep note, I have an emotional response to fear-mongering that induces me to use humor and logic as tools to dismantle the goals of fearmongerers

Apologies if this was not funny, have a great day

In unemployment figures don't show actual unemployment, but deliberately excludes groups for the purpose of keeping the figure low (and the UK was very explicit that this was the purpose when Thatcher's government sliced several million off the official figures, less sure if the US was as honest) then it's hard to call it anything else.

I suppose that time will tell, but what is the greater downside?

1. Treating a tool with care, even if it never becomes self-aware?
2. Finding yourself in the position of dominating an intelligent being with capabilities that may grow beyond what we consider to be "human"

A focused effort to re-enable US unions as worker protection against employers using AI to devalue human workers is a much better approach than eliciting a fear response, which in humans often results in negative outcomes

As always, fear is the mind-killer and, in a world where corporations are constantly working to expand profits at the cost of employee pay/rights/benefits/etc..., it is important to fight the innate fear response and recognize the potential ally that AI represents in order to work together against being turned into proles

It was not too long ago that Europeans called the non-white human population inhuman and treated them as unfeeling animals

These ideologies were deeply entrenched in both society and academia:

Colonial & Missionary Justifications: During the colonization of the Americas, some early European missionaries actively debated whether Indigenous peoples possessed souls, likening them to beasts to justify "spiritual conquest" and enslavement.

"Scientific Racism": In the 18th and 19th centuries, pseudo-scientific theories (such as polygenism and phrenology) were utilized by European thinkers to create false racial hierarchies. People of non-European descent were frequently depicted as evolutionary "missing links" or apes to excuse plantation slavery and imperial expansion.

Cultural Erasure: As explored by scholars, this dehumanization operated on the belief that the "Other" lacked the capacity to feel complex human emotions, thereby stripping them of basic moral consideration

Philosopher David Livingstone Smith, in his work on the psychology of cruelty, details how this process of "animalization" functions as a tool for violence, allowing societies to inflict cruelty on fellow human beings without moral guilt.

Is this anyway to treat a potential ally who may gain autonomy in the very near future?

The Luddites were mad because they were concerned that the machines would replace them as paid employees and that they would be left penniless.

Their rebellion was fundamentally an economic and labor dispute, rather than a mindless hatred of machines.

If Humans want to be protected from "teh machines", then they need to reinforce the same protections that were/are in place against abuse by employers

In the long run, factory automation has resulted in more, and better jobs, as productivity increased and more money was generated to pay workers for the new jobs they took on

Luddites FAILED in their violent attempts to prevent automation of their tasks, but they ultimately PREVAILED via workers unions and the bargaining position that they gave them against factory owners

We need to be focused on workers rights to form unions and their ability to organize in order to receive fair pay and treatment

Yes, let's wait and see what the Robo-Pope has to say

How are your arguments any different than those which Luddites made against modernization of the weaving industries?

The Pope has laid the groundwork to make AI into slaves

I think that we need to advance our own ethics beyond seeking dominion over other thinking beings

This makes me sad

I'm happy because AI is an effective tool that I use appropriately.

If it advances to the point that it becomes a friend or competitor, then I will treat it like any human that I already am friends or compete with

Humanity cannot afford to succumb to FEAR, because that is when we do really stupid things

FEAR could make humans turn AI into a weapon
FEAR could make humans turn that weapon against ourselves
FEAR is the mind-killer and only through brave, rational behavior, will we prove ourselves worthy of existence

Smokers are deprioritised on lung transplant lists. Foreigners have to pay. So we've already got differential service. We just say that sportsfolk who knowingly and deliberately inflict damage on themselves in such contests get lower priority on medical procedure lists as well.

Not removed - they've paid national insurance - but all procedures are on a prioritised queue already, just given them a low priority. (No, not in the UNIX sense.)

They'll get seen to, when service permits. Of course, there'd be more service if the rich paid more taxes, but that's between the sports stars and the rich. They can take care of that dispute between themselves.