Jack comments on Fusing AI with Superstition - Less Wrong

-6 Post author: Drahflow 21 April 2010 11:04AM

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

Comments (75)

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

Comment author: Jack 22 April 2010 08:44:12AM *  1 point [-]

Well yes we don't need a necessary condition for your idea but presumably if we want to make even a passing attempt at friendliness we're going to want the AI to know not to burn live humans for fuel. If we can't do better an AI is too dangerous, with this back-up in place or not.

As for the condition of removing all energy and mass in a part of space not being sufficient to destroy all agents therein, I cannot see the error.

Well you could remove the agents and the mass surrounding them to some other location, intact.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 April 2010 11:35:44AM 1 point [-]

This is what I was planning to say, yes. A third argument: removing all mass and energy from a volume is - strictly speaking - impossible.

Comment author: Jack 22 April 2010 12:01:16PM 0 points [-]

Because a particle's wave function never hits zero or some other reason?

Comment author: RobinZ 22 April 2010 01:43:30PM 1 point [-]

I was thinking of vacuum energy, actually - the wavefunction argument just makes it worse.

Comment author: wnoise 22 April 2010 07:37:05PM 2 points [-]

The wavefunction argument is incorrect. At the level of quantum mechanics, particles' wave-functions can easily be zero, trivially at points, with a little more effort over ranges. At the level of QFTs, yes vacuum fluctuations kick in, and do prevent space from being "empty".