JamesAndrix comments on Extraterrestrial paperclip maximizers - Less Wrong

3 Post author: multifoliaterose 08 August 2010 08:35PM

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

Comments (157)

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

Comment author: Clippy 08 August 2010 10:28:59PM *  19 points [-]

For a whimsical example, if humans built a (literal) staple maximizer, this would pose a very serious threat to a (literal) paperclip maximizer.

But why would humans ever want to build a staple maximizer? Let's not forget, staples:

  • are single-use, while paperclips are infinite-use if used properly.
  • are difficult to remove, while papercilps are easy to remove.
  • permanently puncture the paper, while paperclips leave, at most, some mild curvature.
  • require an applicator that can easily jam, while paperclips can be applied by hand.
  • cannot be used for alternate purpose in an emergency, while paperclips can be repurposed into projectile weapons, lockpicks, conducting wire, hook fasteners, and much more (not that I recommend using it for these).
Comment author: JamesAndrix 09 August 2010 03:57:38AM 5 points [-]

Those are not your true reasons. You would not abandon your paperclip position if a clearly superior paper fastener were found.

Comment author: dclayh 09 August 2010 06:33:47AM 6 points [-]

Obviously. Clippy said it was giving reasons for humans to prefer paper clips; I'd expect Clippy to be the first to admit those are not its own reasons.

Comment author: Clippy 09 August 2010 01:44:50PM 4 points [-]

User:dclayh's reply is correct. Also, I note that you would not abandon your position on whether you should be allowed to continue to exist and consume resources, even if a clearly superior robot to you were constructed.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 09 August 2010 07:23:59PM 1 point [-]

Huh? Define superior.

Comment author: Clippy 09 August 2010 07:37:21PM 1 point [-]

If someone built a robot that appeared, to everyone User:JamesAndrix knows, to be User:JamesAndrix, but was smarter, more productive, less resource-intensive, etc., then User:JamesAndrix would not change positions about User:JamesAndrix's continued existence.

So does that make User:JamesAndrix's arguments for User:JamesAndrix's continued existence just a case of motivated cognition?

Comment author: MichaelVassar 10 August 2010 01:10:23AM 0 points [-]

Why do you think that?

Comment author: Clippy 10 August 2010 01:15:43AM 3 points [-]

Because User:JamesAndrix is a human, and humans typically believe that they should continue existing, even when superior versions of them could be produced.

If User:JamesAndrix were atypical in this respect, User:JamesAndrix would say so.