= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Advice for AI makers - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (196)
We should encourage thinking about the intent (incoming) and expected effect (outgoing) of truisms, rather than their literal meaning. If either of the above injunctions actually doesn't apply to you, you'll know it.
My concern is you'll also 'know' it doesn't apply to you when it does. People write ciphers all the time.
Yes, this is my concern too. However, anyone who posts to a newsgroup saying "I'm about to write my own cipher, any advice" should not do it. The post indicated someone who planned to actually start writing code; that's a definite sign that they shouldn't do it.
See the addendum above; "don't do it" isn't likely to work.
Even though it's unlikely to work, it is still the approach which minimizes risk; even a small reduction in their probability of going ahead will likely be a bigger effect than any other safety advice you can give, and any other advice will act against its efficacy.
"Then they are fools and nothing can be done about it." In any case, this seems to be the opposite of the concern you were citing before.
If we use truisms that everyone knows have to be ignored by someone, It becomes easier to think they can be ignored by oneself.
I reread the thread, leaning towards your position now.