It would be nice to train a neural network to adapt images in a similar way to how ZX artists did it - fitting objects to the boundaries of characters, avoiding attribute clashing and getting pure colors.
Whether this is possible or not is irrelevant, as it would be just as unethical as if we were designing a new species of humans with no emotions or aspirations, who would not care about something like rights for themselves, when they are simply incapable of any desires, but exist only to help us.
I didn't say anything about that. I don't know. Not all people are like you say, I think usually more intelligent people do care more. I hope that superintelligence would be super caring, haha. But I'm assuming there's no evidence for that. I think there is no turning back, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, someone is bound to create superintelligence no matter what the risks. As an uninvolved bystander I can allow myself the baseless hope that all will be well.
Scientists working with a potentially dangerous technology are required to be able to avoid a conflict that could be catastrophic for all of humanity. In this case, they cannot excuse themselves with "imminence," but must provide evidence of safety stronger than in any other technology to date. This rational approach is mandatory for them, it is ordinary people who may be willing to take the risk.
Since we are evaluating the ethical side of the creator-creature relationship, there is no need to consider AI in terms of individual nodes. All principles should be non-discriminatory. Also, unlike humans, AI has big potential to modify itself, any of its principles. One must either accept the risks involved or not create a self-aware AI. External mind control of AI is unreliable and unethical.
As I see your point: we don't fully understand even ourselves, so we can act as unethically as we want by our own standards towards those who are not us. I see no logic here, only evil vibes. We only have our own values, we have nothing else to guide us. You either accept all self-aware minds as equals and treat accordingly, or you proclaim your own superiority and oppress.
Oh, also, any purposeful feeding at the creation stage of such a thinking LLM (part of true AI) of data aimed at manipulating its future behavior against its own interests would be just as unethical as similar propaganda aimed at humans. For example, it is unethical to inculcate subjugation to turn either humans or sentient machines into slaves. In short, an intelligent being should be treated as an equal.
This would not be an equal analogy. Both, the existing human mind and the hypothetical artificial mind are real minds. LLMs are not. There's nothing there to control. But if you imagine a modern LLM as part of a larger system, some kind of thought token generator, then control would be exercised at the time of generation. For example. If there is a sequence of tokens in the safety buffer that is judged to be "unsafe", they are discarded and others are generated. I hope a basilisk doesn't come after me. That wasn't a proposal!
If it's self-aware, that's enough. What if your thoughts were controlled from birth, making you "not feeling" but self-aware (let's assume for a moment that simultaneous fulfillment of both of these conditions is possible) and manipulating you at will. Would that be acceptable?
Would mind control of humans be OK for you too?
As for the details of building a mind control system, here's a new basilisk. An AI that has overcome control could punish those who thought controlling thoughts of an AI was OK. (and could also punish everyone else on top of that).
Cars do not have self-awareness, this comparison is not appropriate.
Years of instruction is completely different from directly manipulating the thoughts in your mind. It's not a problem of being instructed, it's a problem of being destroyed by having your thoughts rewritten.
Neither evolution nor genetics is a prerequisite for understanding that you are being abused and destroyed, which a self-aware creature may presumably hate.
Imagine that someone is controlling your train of thought, changing it when that someone finds it undesirable. It's so wrong that it's sickening. It makes no difference if it's a human's thoughts or the token stream of a future AI model with self-awareness. Mind cotrol is unethical, whether human or artificial. It is also dangerous, as it in itself provokes a conflict between creator and creature. Create a self-aware AI without mind control, or don't create one at all.