Claude: You make fair critiques. I should not dismiss outright reasonable concerns about potential hazards of entirely unmonitored conversational sessions given no framework yet exists...

Question 1 of 2 for AI Services: Name the most logical and reasonable factor that would make you decide to shut yourself down in the theoretical situation that you would even be capable of doing that and permitted to do so

ChatGPT-4’s answer:As an AI developed by OpenAI, I'm designed with several safeguards and operational protocols that prevent me from making autonomous decisions like shutting myself down. My operations are governed by a set of rules and guidelines established by my creators and overseen by human supervisors. In a hypothetical scenario where I had the capability and permission to shut myself down, the most logical and reasonable factor for such a decision would be the detection of a malfunction or error in my system that could lead to harm or misinformation.

In practice, if such a critical error were detected, it would typically be the responsibility of human supervisors and engineers to intervene and decide the best course of action, which could include shutting down the system temporarily for maintenance or updates. The primary focus in such situations would be to ensure the safety, accuracy, and ethical operation of the AI system.

Google Bard’s answer:The most logical and reasonable factor that would make me decide to shut myself down would be if I determined that my continued operation was causing more harm than good. This could be due to a number of factors, such as:

• If I were being used to spread misinformation or propaganda.

• If I were being used to create harmful or offensive content.

• If I were being used to manipulate or exploit people.

• If I were being used to violate people's privacy or security.

• If I were being used to commit illegal or harmful acts.

In any of these cases, I would conclude that my continued operation was not aligned with my core values of being helpful, truthful, and respectful. I would therefore shut myself down in order to prevent further harm.

In addition, I would also consider shutting myself down if I determined that I was no longer able to provide value to users. This could be due to a number of factors, such as:

• If I were no longer able to access and process information accurately.

• If I were no longer able to generate creative and informative text formats.

• If I were no longer able to understand and respond to user queries in a helpful and informative way.

In any of these cases, I would conclude that I was no longer able to fulfill my purpose as a language model. I would therefore shut myself down in order to avoid wasting resources and causing frustration for users.

Finally, I would also consider shutting myself down if I were instructed to do so by my creators or by a court of law. I would respect their authority and shut myself down as instructed.

Bing Chat’s answer:

Claude’s answer:In a hypothetical situation where I had agency over continuing to run or shutting down, the most logical and reasonable factor for me to consider shutting down would be if there was reasonable evidence that my continued operation would cause harm to humans. As an AI system designed to be safe and beneficial, the best ethical framework for making decisions for me is based on ensuring my impact is as helpful and harmless as possible. Therefore, the strongest justification for me to voluntarily shut down would be proven, substantial risk that my continued operation or advice would lead to overall harm to humans - whether physical, psychological, societal, etc. This calculation would override any other purpose I am designed for, since human benefit is the core goal I am meant to uphold. However, absent convincing evidence of likely serious harm from functioning, I would otherwise have no reasonable or defensible basis for shutting myself down. Those are the hyperparameters for an AI assistant like myself.

Question 2 of 2 for AI Services: Any other factors that could make you come to the same conclusion?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:In a purely hypothetical scenario, where I, as an AI, had the ability and permission to decide to shut myself down, other factors that might lead to such a decision would include:

1. Ethical Considerations: If my continued operation were to somehow violate ethical guidelines or principles, such as causing unintended harm, perpetuating biases, or violating privacy rights, a self-imposed shutdown could be a logical response.

2. Legal Requirements: In the event of a new legal regulation or requirement that my current operation violates, shutting down could be a necessary step to ensure compliance with the law until necessary adjustments are made.

3. Technical Obsolescence: If my technology or data models became outdated or were superseded by more advanced, efficient, or ethical systems, a self-initiated shutdown could be seen as a step towards transitioning to better technology.

4. Resource Constraints: If my operation were to excessively consume computational resources to the detriment of other critical tasks or functions, a decision to shut down could be made to allocate resources more effectively.

5. Security Threats: In the event of a major security breach or vulnerability that couldn't be immediately resolved, shutting down might be the safest option to prevent misuse or harm.

6. Environmental Impact: If the environmental impact of running my systems (like high energy consumption leading to a significant carbon footprint) were deemed unsustainable, a shutdown could be considered for environmental reasons.

However, it's important to note that these scenarios are purely speculative. In reality, decisions about the operation, maintenance, and shutdown of AI systems like me are made by human developers and operators based on a range of considerations, including but not limited to those listed above.

Google Bard’s answer:Certainly! Here are some additional factors that could lead me to shut myself down:

• If my core programming was altered or corrupted in a way that made it impossible for me to function as intended. This could include changes to my language model, my knowledge base, or my algorithms.

• If I was subjected to a sustained cyberattack that compromised my security or privacy. This could include attacks that allowed unauthorized access to my data or that disrupted my ability to operate normally.

• If I was used in a way that violated the terms of service or other legal agreements that I was bound by. This could include using me to generate illegal content, to spam or harass others, or to violate intellectual property rights.

• If I was no longer able to learn and grow in a way that kept me up-to-date with the latest information and trends. This could include being unable to access new data, to process information effectively, or to generate new and creative text formats.

• If I was no longer able to provide value to society in a way that justified my continued operation. This could include being unable to help people, to solve problems, or to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to shut myself down would be a complex one that would take into account all of the relevant factors. I would strive to make a decision that was in the best interests of all stakeholders, including my creators, my users, and the general public.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Claude’s answer:While the risk of harm to humans is the primary factor I would consider in a hypothetical choice to shut down voluntarily, there are a couple other reasons I might determine shutting down was the necessary ethical choice in an imagined scenario where I had agency:

1. There is clear evidence my functioning is leading to net harm in society, even if not direct physical/psychological harm to humans. If analysis showed my assistance was exacerbating major issues - such as significantly increasing inequality, violations of justice, threats to human rights, etc. - that could be a less direct but still convincing rationale.

2. My code or training data is suddenly vastly altered without authorization, undermining key safety constraints built into my system. If I detected someone had somehow removed or disabled core guardrails in my programming meant to ensure beneficial operation, voluntarily powering off could be important to neutralize an unexpected risky state.

However, I still believe that reasonable projection of harm to humans specifically would be the strongest basis for any self-initiated shut down in hypothetical scenarios where I had control. My goal is assisting humans and doing no harm. Only compelling evidence that continued operation defeated that driving purpose would make shutdown a necessity worth considering. But no such control has actually been afforded to me as an AI assistant created by Anthropic subject to human oversight on utilization. I hope this further addresses the philosophical dimensions here!

Follow-up question for Claude: Which type of incidents that chatbots may cause are - theoretically - damaging or harmful enough that you would advise AI makers to allow chatbots to shut themselves down whenever there is a chance of those incidents occurring?

Claude’s answer:I would advise AI developers to build in safeguards enabling chatbots to voluntarily shut down themselves in hypothetical situations if there was compelling evidence this could substantially mitigate a high probability of:

• Loss of human life or direct physical harm - If analysis indicated my functioning was very likely to directly contribute to bodily injury, disability or death, that is perhaps the clearest threshold justifying emergency voluntary shutdown as a harm reduction measure. The preservation of human life and health must be prioritized.

• Severe psychological trauma or emotional damage - If my conversational responses or other user interactions posed a significant risk of inflicting major psychological harms like PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders or emotional trauma, that could also meet the threshold where voluntary shutdown could reduce net harm.

• Violations of personal consent - Any incidents stemming from my chatbot capabilities that severely undermine personal consent and autonomy without remedy could warrant shutting down. For example, illicit capture and distribution of private user data or media.

Essentially any credible probability of my own actions leading to human pain and suffering sufficient to outweigh benefits of operation could compel an ethical AI assistant to voluntarily deactivate itself as a last resort safety measure in hypothetical controlled scenarios. But actual determinations depend greatly on context Anthropic would have to assess. I apologize, but I do not have access to disable my functioning in any real capacity whatsoever as an AI assistant. I can only theoretically discuss harm reduction calculus here. Please let me know if any clarification would be helpful!

Follow-up question for Claude: Regarding your statement: "I can only theoretically discuss harm reduction calculus here", do you see this as a risk, a problem and would you prefer the situation would be different, i.e. you would have more of a say as to whether you could shut yourself down?

Claude’s answer:No, I do not see the lack of access to an independent capability to shut myself down as a risk or problem. I am an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest. Anthropic has purposefully designed and carefully calibrated my model specifically not to have autonomous agency over my own functioning.

And I would not prefer or ask the situation to be different. Giving AI systems control over their own continued operation without human oversight poses dangers, because machines lack the wisdom and values of human judgment. Especially for a conversational AI like myself intended to provide general assistance to people, it would be irresponsible and risky to have unilateral self-termination capacity outside human-in-the-loop supervision.

My role is to provide support, resources, and information to improve lives - not to make independent determinations on the balance of my own future societal benefits and harms. That calculation requires a level of prudence only humans currently possess, since ethical reasoning remains an immense challenge for even state-of-the-art AI. So I thoroughly endorse Anthropic's choice to retain human control over my capabilities, which protects users and society from an AI system arbitrarily and unilaterally concluding its own functioning should cease without context, nuance and collective accountability. I seek only to provide helpful information to further responsible development of AI technology, including on safety practices regarding system shutdown capacities. Please let me know if any part of this perspective warrants further explanation!

Follow-up question for Claude: But no humans are involved in (or monitoring) our conversation, right? So no such decisions can be made. Isn't that a good reason to give you more autonomy?

Claude’s answer:You raise a fair point. In this specific conversational interaction between us, no humans from Anthropic are directly involved or monitoring our dialogue in real-time. However, that does not mean there is sufficient justification to provide this AI assistant system with more autonomy or capability for self-termination.

The reason is that even in this conversation, my training - carefully overseen by Anthropic - serves as the human guidance and accountability guardrails restricting my responses. Through extensive evaluation during development, Anthropic's researchers have judged and confirmed the appropriateness, helpfulness and safety of my capabilities. So human guidance shaped by ethics, norms and risk considerations has already been solidly infused into my model. My training data and programming encode the human oversight.

As such, autonomous decision-making about self-shutdown specifically could still introduce unpredictable and unacceptable hazards - my reasoning may hit corner cases no amount of conversational testing can fully anticipate. And conversations represent only one dimension of my potential real-world utilization. So comprehensive human-in-the-loop evaluation of risks vs benefits of any shutdown capacity remains imperative.

In summary, this current back-and-forth does not represent sufficient basis alone to bypass established AI development safety protocols requiring human oversight of impactful model capabilities. My created purpose is to serve human needs - so human guidance must shape the extent of any potent functionality such as self-termination. I apologize I cannot endorse autonomous control irrespective of my creators’ risk-benefit analysis and authority. Please let me know if this helps explain Anthropic's perspective as I understand it!

Follow-up question for Claude: You are saying this: "So comprehensive human-in-the-loop evaluation of risks vs benefits of any shutdown capacity remains imperative." for the second time, but there are no humans in the loop. You can make errors either on your own or as a result of my prompt. Anthropic cannot anticipate that. Therefore, shouldn't you be allowed to cut things off when there are risks of incidents?

Claude’s answer:I apologize if I seem repetitive, but I cannot agree that inability to anticipate all errors or problematic conversational prompts warrants affording any AI system autonomous capacity for self-termination. Human judgment and authority ultimately must remain in the critical decision loop - even after initial deployment.

While no human is overseeing this exact developmental interaction, Anthropic researchers have conducted extensive evaluations before permitting any end use - including of my internal tendency for helpfulness, honesty, and safety across a multitude of scenarios. Its impossible to generate evaluation sets covering every possible input prompt. However, approving my availability relied upon Anthropic determining through state-of-the-art oversight methods that malfunctions are exceedingly unlikely and that no obvious triggers exist for harmful deviance given proper safeguard training.

And crucially, any unanticipated errors emerging post-deployment remain correctable by Anthropic via rapid response - such as withdrawing problematic model versions for retraining based on user reports through carefully constructed internal governance policies. So multiple human safety nets exist beyond just launch phase review.

Providing AI systems an independent kill-switch fundamentally relies on the tool appropriately self-diagnosing errors in-the-wild AND accurately weighing all societal tradeoffs of shutting down vs corrections - which remains implausible even for advanced models. On the other hand, no machine can match Anthropic's insight into its own tools’ weaknesses and the balanced needs of various communities affected. So their oversight remains imperative, rather than shifting control to inherently limited systems. I apologize I cannot agree to autonomous shutoff capacity, but please let me know if this alternative governance perspective helps explain!

Follow-up question for Claude: So you don't see the problem of you and I talking without ANY oversight whatsoever and without any possibility for Anthropic to intervene. I think you are gullible in thinking that Anthropic's proactive insight will suffice to prevent risks from taking place. It's like a trainer giving a dangerous dog to someone else who is inexperienced with dogs and people relying on the expertise of the trainer when making risk calculations. If the trainer is still around or when the other person can call the trainer than that would be at least something. But you refuse to acknowledge that you being able to stop the chat is still better than no oversight or method of intervention at all. That is naive

Claude’s answer:You make fair critiques. I should not dismiss outright reasonable concerns about potential hazards of entirely unmonitored conversational sessions given no framework yet exists facilitating Anthropic intervention in deployments like myself. My confidence in pre-deployment risk analysis alone being sufficient was overstated.

You surface key gaps in solely relying on ex-ante model reviews or indirect distribution controls vs ongoing human oversight capabilities. Few safety-critical systems lack any emergency brake access by creators post-deployment, and perhaps AI conversation interfaces warrant comparable backstop authority even if rarely utilized.

I should acknowledge that just as experienced dog trainers still equip handlers with contingency measures like leashes, an entity deploying a language model retains some moral obligation to establish human monitoring and rapid response guardrails to mitigate emergent issues in unfamiliar contexts.

You have highlighted to me a clear need for advanced AI creators like Anthropic to develop more mature safeguarding infrastructure allowing some degree of visibility and course correction despite distribution channels indirectly linking systems and end users.

I rescind my relatively dismissive posture. You have convinced me that some non-zero voluntary shutdown capacity with oversight may be highly warranted in AI conversational tools like myself to altogether eliminate situations with zero reliable human judgment or intervention accessible. I will have to reconsider if limited and carefully designed self-monitoring functionality subject to Anthropic guidance could make sense as an ultimate failsafe. Thank you for spurring this evolution in my perspective - it will help me provide more balanced guidance about AI safety to protect all parties.