Waser's 3 Goals of Morality

mwaser

In the spirit of Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics

You should not be selfish
You should not be short-sighted or over-optimize
You should maximize the progress towards and fulfillment of all conscious and willed goals, both in terms of numbers and diversity equally, both yours and those of others equally

It is my contention that Yudkowsky’s CEV converges to the following 3 points:

I want what I want
I recognize my obligatorily gregarious nature; realize that ethics and improving the community is the community’s most rational path towards maximizing the progress towards and fulfillment of everyone’s goals; and realize that to be rational and effective the community should punish anyone who is not being ethical or improving the community (even if the punishment is “merely” withholding help and cooperation)
I shall, therefore, be ethical and improve the community in order to obtain assistance, prevent interference, and most effectively achieve my goals

I further contend that, if this CEV is translated to the 3 Goals above and implemented in a Yudkowskian Benevolent Goal Architecture (BGA), that the result would be a Friendly AI.

It should be noted that evolution and history say that cooperation and ethics are stable attractors while submitting to slavery (when you don’t have to) is not. This formulation expands Singer’s Circles of Morality as far as they’ll go and tries to eliminate irrational Us-Them distinctions based on anything other than optimizing goals for everyone — the same direction that humanity seems headed in and exactly where current SIAI proposals come up short.

Once again, cross-posted here on my blog (unlike my last article, I have no idea whether this will be karma'd out of existence or not ;-)

This is too confused to follow as a human, and much too confused to program an AI with.

Also ambiguity aside, (2) is just bad. I'm having trouble imagining a concrete interpretation of "don't over-optimize" that doesn't reduce to "fail to improve things that should be improved". And while short-sightedness is a problem for humans who have trouble modelling the future, I don't think AIs have that problem, and there are some interesting failure modes (of the destroys-humanity variety) that arise when an AI takes too much of a long view.

How does a post that says "I'm having trouble imagining a concrete interpretation of "don't over-optimize" that doesn't reduce to "fail to improve things that should be improved". " almost immediately get 4 upvotes?

Can everyone here really not see someone over-optimizing their search for money at the expense of their happiness or the rest of their life?

Yeah, yeah, I know. You are all so eager to deep-six the original post that you'll upvote any detractors no mater how bad.

First and third paragraphs are attacks at the group, and the second is a rhetorical question (in the right direction). Please stick to object level. If you feel that your views are misrepresented, don't take offense: we try to make a more precise sense of what you say than your words let on, and can err in interpretation. The progress is made by moving forward, correcting the errors and arriving at common understanding. The progress is halted by taking offense, which leads to discouraging of further conversation even without outright stopping it.

If you con... (read more)

10Kingreaper15y

You're not expressing yourself very clearly, and you're creating multiple top-level discussion posts for not very clearly thought through reasons. You're then getting indignant when others don't understand your points, being unwilling to accept that your explanation may have been flawed, and proceeding to insult the community in general. This is not likely to result in you getting the benefit of the doubt. If you took a break from top-level posting, and tried to work out your positions more clearly, and less adversarially, you might stand a better chance.

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

-16

Waser's 3 Goals of Morality

-16

-16