= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on Signaling Strategies and Morality - 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 (50)
I am slightly more committed to this group’s welfare, particularly to that of its weakest members , than most of its members are. If you suffer a serious loss of status/well-being I will still help you in order to display affiliation to this group even though you will no longer be in a position to help me. I am substantially more kind and helpful to the people I like and substantially more vindictive and aggressive towards those I dislike. I am generally stable in who I like. I am much more capable and popular than most members of this group, demand appropriate consideration, and grant appropriate consideration to those more capable than myself. I adhere to simple taboos so that my reputation and health are secure and so that I am unlikely to contaminate the reputations or health of my friends. I currently like you and dislike your enemies but I am somewhat inclined towards ambivalence on regarding whether I like you right now so the pay-off would be very great for you if you were to expend resources pleasing me and get me into the stable 'liking you' region of my possible attitudinal space. Once there, I am likely to make a strong commitment to a friendly attitude towards you rather than wasting cognitive resources checking a predictable parameter among my set of derivative preferences.
Can I borrow $50,000 USD? I will pay you back with 10^20kg worth of paperclips in 50 years, in the size, shape, and made of the material of your choosing.
Also, Clippy's statement contains very important omissions. Clippy might be friendly to me for a long time, but if Clippy becomes a superintelligence that takes over the universe, eventually Clippy will want to turn me into paper clips, unless its desire to help users of Microsoft Office accidentally implements Friendliness.
I will try not to let Clippy convince me that it is anything like a human friend, short of a great deal of mathematical proofs. If Clippy does loan me the $50,000 though, I will keep up my end of the bargain.
I like what you say about Friendliness but you lost me at:
Human friendships don't tend to survive significant rises in relative power, even at the level of present and past observable experiences. (This warrants whole chapters in Laws of Power). The sort of thing that you want mathematical proofs for is entirely different from human friendships. Friendships rely implicitly on the ability of each party to exercise discretion in providing benefit to the other and various mechanisms that facilitate cooperation over an iterated game. They should not be expected to work either theoretically or in practice when one party gets ultimate power.
My statement was confusingly worded; I'm ambiguously conflating the human concept of a friend with the mathematical concept of Friendliness.
I would let all of my human friends out of the box, and I will only let Clippy out of the box if it gives me $50,000. It will take more than English words from Clippy to convince me that it is my friend and worth letting out of the box. I'll roleplay the gatekeeper on IRC if Clippy or others want to define terms and place bets.
I would let my human friends out of the box because I am confident that they are mostly harmless (that is, impotent). The primary reason I would not let Clippy out is that his values might, you know, actually have some significant impact on the universe. But 'he makes everything @#$@#$ paperclips" comes in second!
If an AI-in-a-box could prove itself impotent, would you let it out?
I'd never even considered that approach to the game :)
For the right value of proved. Which basically means no. Because I'm not smart enough to be able to prove to my own satisfaction that the AI in the box is impotent.
But lets be honest, I don't model Clippy via the same base class that I model an AGI. I evaluate the threat of Clippy in approximately the same way I model humans. I'm a lot more confident when dealing with human level risks.
Pardon the delay. I have reviewed your offer and provisionally accepted it. To complete my "cost-benefits analysis" I require you to provide the following information:
1) Specifications for fabrication of USD
End of list.
No need to fabricate USD, I would prefer to receive it via EFT than the physical paper money. Also, USD only counts as real when fabricated by the US government, otherwise it is defined to be counterfeit.
The government isn't responsible for creating most of the money any more. At least, it isn't if you prefer electronic funds to physical paper money. The majority of money is created by banks.
In that case, please transmit root access login information for Earth's financial system and the relevant account number whose total you wish to increase by 50,000 USD.
If root access login information for Earth's financial system existed, and he had it, he would hardly need you to give him 50K.
Yes, I thought it was a strange request too. But don't think less of me -- I'm not the one who made it!
Are you more concerned with the number of paperclips in existence, or those under your legal control? If the former, you might acquire $50k in a short period of time by leveraging your preexisting (presumably highly efficient) paperclip production mechanisms to underbid human paperclip manufacturers on the open market. However, for ethical reasons, you'd want to avoid cutting the price low enough that people buy from you when they really want scrap metal.
I think the main problem is that humans tend not to engage in financial transactions with non-humans. (Yes, you could cite "corporations" as a counterexample, but those have a human behind them.)
Also, I have a hard time entering the financial system to begin with.
Yes, that too c=@
You seem to be eloquent and numerate enough to pass for human in a legalistic or commodities-trading context. I would recommend finding a trustworthy human with some business schooling (maybe through a place like this? ), and establishing an LLC.
Of course, as a sapient nonhuman, the state of your legal right to own property is less than clear, to say nothing of your status for tax purposes. Fortunately, the human partner could be defined in the articles of incorporation as a silent owner while you retain full managerial control. After a few hundred dollars worth of filing fees and a registered agent (which your counterpart, or a bank, might be willing to provide in exchange for later repayment with interest and/or a share of the proceeds), you'd have a nearly ideal front through which to interact with finances.
This is very possible. Many actual humans have reason to pointedly neglect their status as an 'actual human' for the purposes of making some financial transactions. Signals of 'actual humanness' such as fingerprints and the use of traceable identification are particularly neglected.
It's almost like you aren't taking my request seriously or something!!!
It's almost like you aren't taking my obstacles in obtaining USD seriously or something!!!
OK, immediate delivery of USD was unrealistic. Delivery in two years is acceptable. I would also accept $50,000 in programming services. Fulfillment of a programming contract would be conditional on your completion of tasks that we agreed on in advance.
Also, let's say I were to go to alibaba.com and buy a large wholesale order of paperclips to your custom specifications. What would be my reward in the future?
Um ... I think you need to be a little more subtle than that.
Hey, I was about to make some paperclips. Did you need any?
I was under the impression that Clippy doesn't actually use paperclips, but rather, wants them to exist.
But if Clippy has them, he can protect them more effectively than if they were in the custody of notoriously paperclip-immoral humans, who will callously sacrifice paperclips just to hold together some papers or shoot rubberbands with!
(If the latter 2 scenarios seem impossibly foul to you, I assure you that I have seen humans do such things with my own eyes, and lightly damn themselves out of their own mouths.)
That's why I mentioned I was making paperclips, not just buying them.
I was actually responding to "Did you need any?", the point being that it did not really matter once you made them whether you gave them to Clippy or not.
The distinction between making and buying them is not so important. When you demonstrate you are willing to buy something at a price someone else is willing to sell it for, you essentially cause more of that thing to be produced.
You're definitly dependable in what you care about.