= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Sarah Connor and Existential Risk - 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 (77)
I'd be more interested in a response to the substance of my comment: If you think that a person is about to turn on a (to your way of thinking) insufficiently Friendly AI, such that killing them might stop the inevitable paperclipping of all you hold dear, how do you take into account the fact that they might have outwitted you by setting up a dead man's switch?
In other words, how do you take into account the fact that killing them might bring about exactly the fate that you intend to prevent; whereas one more exchange of rational argument might convince them not to do it?
If someone with a facemask is pointing a gun at you he might just want to present it and ask you if you want to buy it, the facemask being the newest fashion hit that you are simply unaware of.