MatthewBaker comments on To signal effectively, use a non-human, non-stoppable enforcer - Less Wrong

31 Post author: Clippy 22 May 2010 10:03PM

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

Comments (164)

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

Comment author: Strange7 27 June 2011 04:43:27AM 1 point [-]

The issue is that "sufficient amount" is a moving target. If it's as much as the current world government could credibly offer, what if somebody has a plan to overthrow said government which hinges on a few fraudulent Clippy-sanctioned oaths?

Comment author: MatthewBaker 27 June 2011 06:55:04PM 1 point [-]

I notice i am confused. I think that you mean that Clippy could be easily corrupted based on situational factors, i was just trying to point out that his utility function is easier to understand then the vast majority of "enforcers" so with correct precautions we would be able to rely on Clippy. Are you saying that there's no way to logistically turn a simple utility function into a safe enforcer with proper preparation? I would enjoy further elaboration of your statement :3

Comment author: Strange7 27 June 2011 07:46:49PM 1 point [-]

I'm saying that dropping something simple, reliable, and well-understood, but not mathematically infallible (like natural law), into an economic system containing billions of humans-as-we-know-them is like dropping wounded livestock into shark-infested waters. Every attempt at corruption successfully repelled makes people more confident in it, and therefore increases the potential rewards for a successful attempt; the existence of irrationally overconfident people means that attempts will continue, and greater rewards mean those attempts will be backed by commensurately greater resources.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 29 June 2011 06:40:10PM 1 point [-]

I understand now :) Do you think you can say the same thing about the regulators of our current economic system?

Comment author: Strange7 01 July 2011 06:36:57PM 3 points [-]

I could, but why bother? Others have said it better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Comment author: MatthewBaker 01 July 2011 08:07:38PM 3 points [-]

Thank you for taking the time to change my mind good sir.

Comment author: Strange7 01 July 2011 08:46:22PM 1 point [-]

You're quite welcome. Thank you for going along willingly, rather than needing to be dragged!