I am not sure I agree, I see your logic but I get the idea its based upon the current method of holding the statistical mean as the way to inform AI of what "is" the case and that mean is contingent upon the data-point (you + I + all its collated data-points.
That "mean" ejects the majority of the data-points upon which that mean is contingent.
The "is" is in the data-points not the statistical mean.
However, "if" we look at the data-point (You for example) we are pretty safe to start the "is" from "Less pain is better than more pain", yes?
Thats pretty universal.
Then add "Self-defense is immutable".
Still universal.
Now add Proxy-Pain (The ability to suffer in our brothers strife (Empathy)
Still pretty universal to all those "Data-Points".
Make your AI follow those rules and you have the beginning of a layer of safety where the AI treats the user or "other" as a valued node just like we do as humans (And dog lovers)
We may be smarter than the dog you mention but if its a friendly dog, we "do" serve it, we do look after it, its well being matters (Has intrinsic value to our own well-being)
Hope I am making some sense of the issue I see on the subject :)
Make your AI follow those rules and you have the beginning of a layer of safety where the AI treats the user or "other" as a valued node just like we do as humans (And dog lovers)
We may be smarter than the dog you mention but if its a friendly dog, we "do" serve it, we do look after it, its well being matters (Has intrinsic value to our own well-being)
Hope I am making some sense of the issue I see on the subject :)