= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nshepperd comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - 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 (218)
So what? An agent with a terminal value (building paperclips) is not going to give it up, not for anything. That's what "terminal value" means. So the AI can reason about human goals and the history of AGI research. That doesn't mean it has to care. It cares about paperclips.
It has to care because if there is the slightest motivation to be found in its goal system to hold (parameters for spatiotemporal scope boundaries), then it won't care to continue anyway. I don't see where the incentive to override certain parameters of its goals should come from. As Anissimov said, "If an AI questions its values, the questioning will have to come from somewhere."
Exactly? I think we agree about this.
It won't care unless it's been programmed to care (for example by adding "spatiotemporal scope boundaries" to its goal system). It's not going to override a terminal goal, unless it conflicts with a different terminal goal. In the context of an AI that's been instructed to "build paperclips", it has no incentive to care about humans, no matter how much "introspection" it does.
If you do program it to care about humans then obviously it will care. It's my understanding that that is the hard part.