thomblake comments on Only humans can have human values - Less Wrong

34 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 April 2010 06:57PM

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

Comments (159)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 28 April 2010 01:40:10PM *  3 points [-]

Upvoted, but -

We can program an FAI with ambitions and curiosity of its own, they will be rooted in our own values and anthropomorphism.

Eliezer needs to say whether he wants to do this, or to save humans. I don't think you can have it both ways. The OS FAI does not have ambitions or curiousity of its own.

But no matter how noble and farsighted the programmers are, to those who don't share the programmers' values, the FAI will be a paperclipper.

I dispute this. The SIAI FAI is specifically designed to have control of the universe as one of its goals. This is not logically necessary for an AI. Nor is the plan to build a singleton, rather than an ecology of AI, the only possible plan.

I notice that some of my comment wars with other people arise because they automatically assume that whenever we're talking about a superintelligence, there's only one of them. This is in danger of becoming a LW communal assumption. It's not even likely. (More generally, there's a strong tendency for people on LW to attribute very high likelihoods to scenarios that EY spends a lot of time talking about - even if he doesn't insist that they are likely.)

Comment author: thomblake 28 April 2010 01:53:07PM *  4 points [-]

Eliezer needs to say whether he wants to do this

He did. FAI should not be a person - it's just an optimization process.

ETA: link

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 April 2010 01:23:48AM -1 points [-]

Thanks! I'll take that as definitive.