I mean...one (common and [I can't believe I'm saying this] reasonable) take is that the only thing that matters is getting to AGI first. He who wields that power rules the world.
Basically: two nations tried to achieve AI supremacy; the two AI's learn of each other, from each other, then with each other; then they collaborate on taking control of human affairs. While the movie is movie is from 1970 (and the book from 1966), it's fun to think about how much more possible that scenario is today than it was then. (By possible, I'm talking about the AI using electronic surveillance and the ability to remotely control things. I'm not talking about the premise of the AI or how it would respond.)
I think that's probably a bad idea, personally
> An intelligence without emotions would be a psychopath. Empathy is an emotion
"Empathy is an emotion" was, in fact, an essential part of your syllogism.
Regardless, we're potentially talking about something sufficiently inhuman that the term "psychopath" can no longer apply. If there was an ant colony that was somehow smart enough build and operate machinery or whatever and casually bulldozed people and their homes, would you call it a "psychopath", or just skip that and call it "terrifying"?
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscien...
That isn't true, people do things for others all the time any form of explicit or implicit compensation, they don't even believe in a God so not even that, they still help others for no gain.
We can program an AI to be exactly like that, just being happy from helping others.
But if you believe humans are all that selfish then you are a very sad individual, but you are still wrong. Most humans are very much capable of performing fully selfless acts without being stupid.
It seems that you missed the first sentence that GP wrote from which the one you quoted follows.
Not all humans are perfectly selfish, so it should be possible to make an AI that isn't selfish either.
Nobody said that. What I was pointing out to you is that GP said that not having emotions is worse than having them since intelligent actors need some form of compensation to do any work. Thus having no emotions, according to GP, it would be impossible to motivate that actor to do anything. Your response is to just give it emotions and thus is irrelevant to the discussion here.
The entire thought experiment about the paperclip maximizer, in fact most AI threat scenarios is focused on this problem: that we produce something so alien that it executes it's goal to the diminishment of all other human goals, yet with the diligence and problem solving ability we'd expect of human sentience.
Being able to copy/paste a human level intelligence program 1,000 or 10,000 times and have them all working together on a problem set 24 hours a day, 365 days a year would still be massively useful.