JackV comments on Cryptographic Boxes for Unfriendly AI - Less Wrong

24 Post author: paulfchristiano 18 December 2010 08:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (155)
Tags: ai

Comments (155)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 18 December 2010 04:20:30PM 13 points [-]

Let me see if I understand. Firstly, is there any reason what you're trying to do is create a friendly AI? Would, for instance, getting an unknown AI to solve a specific numerical problem with an objectively checkable answer be an equally relevant example, without the distraction of whether we would ever trust the so-called friendly AI?

I think Less Wrong needs a variant of Godwin's Law. Any post whose content would be just as meaningful and accessible without mentioning Friendly AI, shouldn't mention Friendly AI.

Comment author: JackV 19 December 2010 01:16:06AM 2 points [-]

LOL. Good point. Although it's a two way street: I think people did genuinely want to talk about the AI issues raised here, even though they were presented as hypothetical premises for a different problem, rather than as talking points.

Perhaps the orthonormal law of less wrong should be, "if your post is meaningful without fAI, but may be relevant to fAI, make the point in the least distracting example possible, and then go on to say how, if it holds, it may be relevant to fAI". Although that's not as snappy as Godwin's :)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit