AndrewHickey comments on Best career models for doing research? - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 07 December 2010 04:25PM

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

Comments (999)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 December 2010 07:44:55PM 15 points [-]

To the best of my knowledge, SIAI has not planned to do anything, under any circumstances, which would increase the probability of you or anyone else being tortured for the rest of infinity.

Supporting SIAI should not, to the best of my knowledge, increase the probability of you or anyone else being tortured for the rest of infinity.

Thank you.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2010 08:43:08PM 2 points [-]

Currently, there are no entities in physical existence which, to my knowledge, have the ability to torture anyone for the rest of eternity.

You intend to build an entity which would have that ability (or if not for infinity, for a googolplex of subjective years).

You intend to give it a morality based on the massed wishes of humanity - and I have noticed that other people don't always have my best interests at heart. It is possible - though unlikely - that I might so irritate the rest of humanity that they wish me to be tortured forever.

Therefore, you are, by your own statements, raising the risk of my infinite torture from zero to a tiny non-zero probability. It may well be that you are also raising my expected reward enough for that to be more than counterbalanced, but that's not what you're saying - any support for SIAI will, unless I'm completely misunderstanding, raise the probability of infinite torture for some individuals.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 December 2010 09:37:28PM 4 points [-]

You intend to give it a morality based on the massed wishes of humanity -

See the "Last Judge" section of the CEV paper.

Therefore, you are, by your own statements, raising the risk of my infinite torture from zero to a tiny non-zero probability.

As Vladimir observes, the alternative to SIAI doesn't involve nothing new happening.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2010 09:45:58PM 3 points [-]

That just pushes the problem along a step. IF the Last Judge can't be mistaken about the results of the AI running AND the Last Judge is willing to sacrifice the utility of the mass of humanity (including hirself) to protect one or more people from being tortured, then it's safe. That's very far from saying there's a zero probability.

Comment author: ata 11 December 2010 12:28:59AM 2 points [-]

IF ... the Last Judge is willing to sacrifice the utility of the mass of humanity (including hirself) to protect one or more people from being tortured, then it's safe.

If the Last Judge peeks at the output and finds that it's going to decide to torture people, that doesn't imply abandoning FAI, it just requires fixing the bug and trying again.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 December 2010 09:15:53PM *  2 points [-]

Just because AGIs have capability to inflict infinite torture, doesn't mean they have a motive. Also, status quo (with regard to SIAI's activity) doesn't involve nothing new happening.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2010 09:33:13PM 5 points [-]

I explained that he is planning to supply one with a possible motive (namely that the CEV of humanity might hate me or people like me). It is precisely because of this that the problem arises. A paperclipper, or any other AGI whose utility function had nothing to do with humanity's wishes, would have far less motive to do this - it might kill me, but it really would have no motive to torture me.