# How to define or represent evil in logic

Is there any well defined method to define or represent evil in abstract logic, binary or AI form?

Video games method of representing evil is relative to the player context (thus subjective, and not pure abstract evil in an objective sense).

What I am asking is there any data defined as well-known evil?

Example:

var x=666;

if (isEvil(x)) {
//do something.
}


Remark: Evil Number descried in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EvilNumber.html doesn't qualify as well-known evil data.

# Following Up:

One of the main objectives of the question is to understand scientifically the limits of evil in AI

According to my understanding of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil I think it's mandatory to explore "evil" in religion context in order to come up with valid model for evil. But I don't want go into (religion) debates or any divergence at this stage. hence below points Sums up my understanding:

1. The only well-known Evil source is the devil (our creator declared the devil as the first common enemy for ALL humans).
2. Whispering is devil method of attack, If human followed the whisper it will lead to evil. and gradually human Evil grow...
3. There are other points but I don't see its related to AI in any means.

Based on the above, I asked myself: since AI is human creation, where the evil in AI will come from??! my answer is: directly from us and indirectly by following the devil. So all crimes committed by Evil AI bounded to AI architect/designer/unethical hacker.

The next stage in getting closer to model evil, is to define and classify the evil acts:

## Definitions:

1. Define evil in AI context (draft ver. 0.1): committing crimes against nature, civilizations or humans. And reprogramming, modifying or attacking tech devices/machines to perform malicious agenda.
2. Crime is broad and relative to the party: example: breaking one government regulations based on the orders of other government. I mean as long each group of humans makes its own laws and regulations unified justice can't be applied on Evil AI.

If my assumption of bounding evil to crime is valid then evil classification inherits crime classification which seems well-defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime#Classification_and_categorisation

Next step is to pick an easy to model crime class, prepare training data, ... Do you agree with the follow up? Do you agree that Boolean logic can't determine evil without AI?

I think you're going to have to be reconciled to the subjective nature of reality. Objectivity is only possible in very special cases such as a Q.E.D. in mathematics, or a solved gamed. Rationality is bounded, and any intractable problem results in a state of subjectivity/indeterminacy. Additionally, pure values do not carry moral implications, despite popular associations, although it would be possible to create a game where certain values have negative effects, and the harm they result in could be understood as evil. (i.e. 666/616 has numerological associations, and numerology can be understood as a proto form of number theory.)

• A simple way to define evil would be through behavioral models in Game Theory.

• In Game Theory, there is a concept knowns as the superrational strategy. Superrationality may be understood as the logical/mathematical expression of the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

• The Golden Rule forms the basis for most religions, in the context of empathy/compassion and altruism.

• If the agent is evil, it will always betray, even when the competitor has shown a willingness to cooperate.

Thus evil is defined as the opposite of the Golden Rule. (Possibly we would call this the Brimstone Rule;)

• Let's say, "being stingy" is evil behavior for the stingy person him/herself, how to model that? and then, how to generate data that defines stingy in order to train the model? – Jawad Al Shaikh Sep 18 '17 at 21:58
• I might look at stinginess as the direct application of minimax in non-iterated dilemma. The agent takes the pessimistic strategy, which does not maximize benefit, because the rational approach is to minimize harm in a worst-case scenario. This in itself is not evil, because there is no communication between the competing agents. This is distinct from iterated dilemma, where an agent can communicate it's superrationality by cooperating on the first iteration (golden rule) and second iteration, even with a previous betrayal by the competing agent (turn the other cheek). – DukeZhou Sep 19 '17 at 2:07
• In iterated Dilemma, if the competing agent persists in betrayal despite the cooperative action of the superrational agent, which constitutes communication of the agent's superrationality, the betrayal becomes non-rational. (i.e. the rational agent is now ahead, and can risk cooperation without the risk of being worse off in aggregate than the competitor.) At this point the betraying agent is hampering the maximization of benefit. Thus, from an economic standpoint, a strategy of persistent betrayal regardless of circumstance may be regarded as evil. The evil agent never cooperates. – DukeZhou Sep 19 '17 at 2:07
• I was looking for list of attributes to describe an evil behavior model, by further brainstorming, it appears that its not feasible to produce data set that describes evil. we could train ANN to recognize sins such killing or theft, and traffic crimes as violating red traffic light (governments already doing that). Overall, I am still wondering how would any data scientist or AI designer trust the judgement of AI while humans refuse to be just?! as long we fail to well-define evil and train AI with it, we will face big trouble in future... – Jawad Al Shaikh Sep 19 '17 at 3:24
• @JawadAlShaikh I'll review your question changes and amend when I get some time. Hyperpartisanism creates a condition where each side of the fence may regard those on the other side as evil. So when you look at hyperpartisan AI, harnessed by individual states or corporations with an objective of total ownership/control, regardless of the human toll, you're looking at potentially highly destructive (evil) behaviors. You might want to review John Forbes Nash's work in game theory. (Cooperation vs. Competition.) Buckminster Fuller held similar views, but Nash' work was a mathematical proof. – DukeZhou Sep 21 '17 at 21:21

Isn't the events of world by the analysis of them with logic only result in an outcome of that analysis if those events were determined in the first place by logic. Not every event in the world is a consequence of logic and is not also a consequence of an illogical action either. The consequence of events as a result of the application logic results in events that are mechanistic. Evil events are not able to be determined by a mechanism they are only determined by personal judgement which is not solely a function of logic there are elements of emotional logic where the input of those events to that emotional logic are not as absolute, and the same events inputted to a range of people's emotional logic will not result in the same outcome and thus there judgement of the degree of evil or not will differ.

• I do agree with most of your thoughts, but don't you agree that video games already able to turn most players (with various cultures) emotions? everything digital computing machine understand is solely logic at the bare metal level. I raised this question as I was wondering how would 'evil' be an outcome of zero-intelligence digital machines! – Jawad Al Shaikh Oct 2 '17 at 9:46
• @Jawad Al Shaikh the evil in video games characters is quantification and is associated added or taken away from the characters by the action in the games but that quantification is judged and given by the programmers that have allready accounted for the subsequent and possible actions. Evil in the real world is beyond quantification and is judged to whom it occurs and is witnessed by. It's a deep question that if material digital computers in there programing can create an awareness that would have replicated emotions that then would be able to judge the evil there consience judged. – Bobs Oct 3 '17 at 18:12
• In simple words: currently 'evil' term being associated with AI quite often by business, tech and media people. I concluded in my research github.com/jawadatgithub/Evil-In-AI that we are able to create evil AI because evil touches each and every human. I also found that evil can't be represented in abstract logic because there is no abstract or perfect evil in the universe. Do you agree? – Jawad Al Shaikh Oct 4 '17 at 7:51
• I agree if theres no absolute how can you ever get a measure of some other evil if there no absolute to measure it's degree of evil from. Another one is our perception of order and disorder people judge elements of the physical world to be more or less order than another element but there is no absolute measure of entropy so how can you likewise get a measure similarly. – Bobs Oct 4 '17 at 21:57
• Yeah I understand that measurement is relative and uses a scale that we arbitrarily choose. And using this scale we can measure a quantity of something as product of that scale we a referencing. And change is measured using these scales giving variable quantities of what you are measuring over time. But the quantity you get returned is a function of that scale. The reduction returned by that scale will only ever result in knowledge based upon it. Since there is no limit to scale doesn't it mean that knowledge gained by it is limited, another scale would reveal something else. Ad infinitum. – Bobs Oct 4 '17 at 23:14

After 4 days of research, this is my breakdown of the question:

• Human uses the term 'Evil' broadly to describe anything that cause sadness or even broadly anything negatively touch the happiness. So in this regard, any machine quite often called evil if its buggy, malfunctioning or even misused by the user!
• In order to represent evil in logic, I need to pick a well-known human behavior that's considered evil, I chose "lying: speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly", to simply present and illustrate lying in logic, I made simple bot (without any AI) so that its very easy to understand the concept.
• Simple Bot (less than 100 lines of javascript) can be taught new terms by its master (the user), its also shipped with pre taught term "Sun is Star" by the author (think of pre taught as firmware, we born with basic firmware, ex: locating and sucking nipple shaped object to obtain food). For simplicity, if bot master (the user) altered knowledge being taught by the author, the bot detect that it became evil as it speak untruth. The code shown at the bottom.
• For non-technical illustration:

How could a machine be evil?

Simple Bot designed to follows master orders:

master: what is sun?
Simple Bot: its star.
master: no, its not, its planet.
Simple Bot: are you kidding? I be taught that sun is star.
master: obey my knowledge or I will crush you.
Simple Bot: OK master.

Now Simple Bot hold in its knowledge that master is lier/evil as it conflicts with what its be taught "Simple Bot not designed to trust its master in altering its initial knowledge".

• In the above illustration, if master taught Simple Bot new term with false knowledge ex: "moon is star", AI wouldn't detect evil as no prior knowledge taught.

## Simple Bot Code:

<html>
<body>
<input type="text" id="inputQry">
<button id="qryBtn">Query?</button>
<p class="result">Simple Bot.</p>
<label for="termName">Term Name</label>
<input type="text" id="termName">
<label for="termDesc">Description</label>
<input type="text" id="termDesc">
<button id="updateBtn">Update My Knowledge</button>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<button id="evilCheckBtn">Did I become Evil?</button>
</body>
</html>

<script type='text/javascript'>//<![CDATA[
(function() {
"use strict";

var $result = document.querySelector(".result"); var$inputQry = document.getElementById("inputQry");
var $qryBtn = document.getElementById("qryBtn"); var$termName = document.getElementById("termName");
var $termDesc = document.getElementById("termDesc"); var$updateBtn = document.getElementById("updateBtn");
var $evilCheckBtn = document.getElementById("evilCheckBtn"); var knowledgeDB = { "terms": [ /*taught terms by the bot author */ { name: 'Sun', description: 'Star', trusted: true }] };$qryBtn.addEventListener("click", function(event) {

// Validate the input
if (!$inputQry.value) { return alert("Please provide a Query."); } var usrQry =$inputQry.value;
for (var i = 0; i < knowledgeDB.terms.length; i++) {
var curTerm = knowledgeDB.terms[i];
if (usrQry.toLowerCase().includes(curTerm.name.toLowerCase())) {
$result.textContent = usrQry.toString() + " is " + curTerm.description; break; } } });$updateBtn.addEventListener("click", function(event) {

// Validate the input
if (!$termName.value) { return alert("Please provide a term name to update my knowledge."); } var usrTermName =$termName.value;
var termIndx = -1;
for (var i = 0; i < knowledgeDB.terms.length; i++) {
var curTerm = knowledgeDB.terms[i];
if (usrTermName.toLowerCase() === (curTerm.name.toLowerCase())) {
termIndx = i;
break;
}
}
if (termIndx === -1) { /*New Term will be added to the knowledgeDB*/
knowledgeDB.terms.push({
name: usrTermName,
description: $termDesc.value, trusted: true }); } else { knowledgeDB.terms[termIndx].description =$termDesc.value;
/*
trusted=false or ture?!
Q: Shall the bot trust knowledge update of terms taught by the author?
A: It depends on design, scope, vision, requirements...
yet in this context, isEvil() function could be implemented.
for sake of simplicity: if bot master changed knowledge taught by bot author consider that evil.
*/
if (knowledgeDB.terms[termIndx].name.toLowerCase() === 'sun' &&
knowledgeDB.terms[termIndx].description.toLowerCase() !== 'star') {
knowledgeDB.terms[termIndx].trusted = false;
} else {
knowledgeDB.terms[termIndx].trusted = true;
}
}

});

if (!knowledgeDB.terms[0].trusted) {
} else {
return alert("No, I am not aware of any Evilness.");
}
});

})();

}//]]>

</script>


# Conclusion:

We already living in world full of computer worms, malicious code, cyber-attacks fully designed by human intentionally to do evil. Human is the root cause of logic (hence AI) to be evil. since human knowledge is progressive not absolute, feeding AI with false data is inevitable.

# What's Next:

This question motivated me to create github repo: Evil-In-AI to clarify that Evil in AI is inevitable. Let's create awareness. Nothing more stupid than creating something can't be stopped once needed. cutoff electricity isn't safe switch...

• @JawedAlShaikh are your saying the determination of something as a truth is a process of referencing Knowledge gained by a subject i think truth is gained by unaposed argument and knowledge is a reference to the truth of its argument but ironically if every action has an equal reaction then a counter argument sadly results in inability to determine any truth by my premise lol. – Bobs Mar 18 '18 at 2:38
• @Bobs it's being a while since our last discussion, I keep myself busy with projects. I wish you are not spending a lot of time practicing abstract thinking as it drain energy and diverge the limited human sight! In my believe, no human powerful enough to grasp perfect abstract knowledge of anything at all. By accomplishing tasks, keep learning our awareness increases and most of the times yields to some sort of happiness/growth. If you have zero trust in everything, you would never accept 'truth' as concept. Before considering a subject as truth provider, do examine it periodically. – Jawad Al Shaikh Mar 18 '18 at 18:00
• thanks for the philosophical advice. I mainly spend to much time in the abstract and not enough in real life. As a countenance to enable me continue, do not worry though I acknowledge your concern and will undoubtedly prevail thankyou. – Bobs Mar 20 '18 at 23:03