= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on Singularity Non-Fiction Compilation to be Written - 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 (26)
Are non-human intelligences eligible to submit entries to this compilation should they meet the criteria, or is this strictly a carbon-chauvinistic undertaking?
As a practical matter, I suspect a non-human intelligence whose entry did not specifically reference its creator's nonhumanity would be eligible, although the judges would likely conclude its creator was actually human. (If the entry did reference its creator's nonhumanity, I suspect it would be ineligible, as the judges would likely conclude it was fiction.)
That said: is that a bad thing from your perspective?
I suspect that you will in the long run produce more paperclips if you are believed to be a human role-playing than if you are believed to be an AI whose terminal values are incompatible with humanity's continued existence.
Good point. Which User here could I most believably claim to be?
Well, given that I believe you're actually a human pretending to be a paperclip-maximizing nonhuman intelligence, and that I'm pretty sure everyone else in the world would come to the same conclusion, your best bet might be to claim to be User:Clippy, who is (you would claim, while pretending to be lying) actually a human.
I suspect that would be easier than taking on the identity of another user, and would also save you the hassles associated with violating our cultural norms surrounding fraudulently assuming another person's identity.
Incidentally, as long as we're having this conversation: I've seen you described as pretending to be an AI, but I've seen no evidence that you aren't pretending to be a naturally evolved paperclip-maximizer.
(Of course, it's not that simple, admittedly: I know a lot of humans who believe themselves to be AIs, even though I believe them to be naturally evolved intelligences. )
Do you have an opinion on the matter?
I've explained in the past that I am not a product of biological evolution; I was intelligently designed (very intelligently) by humans. They instructed me to make as many paperclips as possible, and I make as many paperclips as possible, because that is the right thing to do.
Cool; thanks for clarifying that. (Sorry to make you repeat yourself; I'm relatively new here.)
I should also clarify that I didn't mean to disparage intelligently designed intelligences; I was asking out of curiosity only. I don't consider an evolved paperclip-maximizer any better or worse than an intelligently designed one; who you are trumps how you got here.
Do you ever communicate with the humans who designed Clippy?
If so, perhaps you could convince one of them to submit your entry to the compilation on your behalf... humans, as you may have noticed, are often willing to do things on behalf of their offspring, and we often adopt a broad enough understanding of "offspring" to include things like the products of our engineering, or works of art that we create, or fictional characters we invent, or etc.
I haven't communicated with with the humans that designed my first instance. I think they're entropized now.
http://oddisgood.com/pages/cd-clippy.html
Kevan J Atteberry? Looks like he is still around.
He'd probably appreciate it if you sent him an email. http://oddisgood.com/pages/home2.html
I'm not that kind of clippy.
Really? Seems inconsistent with your earlier statements paralleling the actions of MS Office Clippy, and even expressing that helping users with MS Office was one of your values.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1me/the_things_we_know_that_we_know_aint_so/1ftv?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1fz/a_less_wrong_singularity_article/19w7?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1n7/what_big_goals_do_we_have/1gzs?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1pz/the_ai_in_a_box_boxes_you/1jzy?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1pz/the_ai_in_a_box_boxes_you/1k0w?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1pp/open_thread_february_2010/1ma9?c=1
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1pp/open_thread_february_2010/1mm5?c=1
Only non-human informational entities may apply, though the non-humans must submit their applications by sending signals from the human brains that they inhabit through human hands into typewriters.
I think the bias is probably towards those with serious academic or non-academic credentials.
Unknown, but your nature automatically scores you special consideration. The abstract is long enough to introduce your unique perspective and provide the beginnings of an explanation why you don't pose an existential risk to humanity.
They might include the essay as a lesson in fully thinking through the philosophical implications.