= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on David Chalmers' "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis" - 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 (202)
I think I see what you're saying; just as we reflect on our desires and try to understand how they tick and where, biologically and historically and culturally, they come from, so also might any AI.
However, the thing about it is: that doesn't actually change those values. For example (and despite the dire warnings of some creationists), despite the fact that we now understand that our value system is a consequence of an evolutionary algorithm, we haven't actually started valuing evolutionary goals over our own built-in goals. For example, contraception is popular even though it's quite silly from the perspective of gene propogation.
Similarly, a paperclip-maximizer might well be interested in figuring out why its utility function is what it is, so that it may better understand the world it lives in... but that's not going to change its overriding and primary interest in making paperclips.
In the modern context, if you impregnate someone without planning it out properly, there's a non-negligible chance they'll get an abortion, which is even worse for gene propagation. Furthermore, parents are to some extent legally responsible for their children's actions, so having too many poorly-regulated kids running around means exposing yourself to liability. A big part of the optimal strategy for present-day long-term reproductive success is to get rich, and a big part of getting rich is not having more kids than you can keep track of.
In terms of genetic success, having more kids than you can keep track of is pretty much the ideal, as long as all or at least most survive to reproductive adulthood.
I think that's a retcon. People use contraception so they can have more sex than they would if they had to worry about having kids every time. They may or may not rationalise further, I suspect that generally they don't.
But some people consciously choose never to have any kids. That's silly from the perspective of gene propagation if anything is.