= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zack_M_Davis comments on Complexity of Value ≠ Complexity of Outcome - 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 (198)
I'm pretty confident Roko agrees with me and that this is just a communication error.
I'm given to understand that the classification scheme is Friendly versus unFriendly, with paperclip maximizer being an illustrative (albeit not representative) example of the latter. I agree that more rigor (and perhaps clearer terminology) is in order.
Machine intelligences seem likely to vary in their desirability to humans.
Friendly / unFriendly seems rather binary, maybe a "desirability" scale would help.
Alas, this seems to be drifting away from the topic.
Technically true. However, most naive superintelligence designs will simply kill all humans. You've accomplished quite a lot to even get to a failed utopia, much less deciding whether you want Prime Intellect or Coherent Extrapolated Volition.
It's also unlikely you'll accidentally do something significantly worse than killing all humans, for the same reasons. A superintelligent sadist is just as hard as a utopia.