Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 17 November 2009 02:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (210)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 November 2009 06:02:15PM -2 points [-]

Correct.

EDIT: If I were picking nits, I would say, "'Should' does apply to paperclip maximizers - it is rational for X to make paperclips but it should not do so - however, paperclip maximizers don't care and so it is pointless to talk about what they should do." But the overall intent of the statement is correct - I disagree with its intent in neither anticipation nor morals - and in such cases I usually just say "Correct". In this case I suppose that wasn't the best policy, but it is my usual policy.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 22 November 2009 06:14:59PM *  4 points [-]

Of course, Kant distinguished between two different meanings of "should": the hypothetical and the categorical.

  1. If you want to be a better Go player, you should study the games of Honinbo Shusaku.
  2. You should pull the baby off the rail track.

This seems useful here...

Comment author: wedrifid 22 November 2009 07:11:00PM *  2 points [-]