= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on My true rejection - 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 (45)
If IBM makes a superintelligent AI that wants to maximize their share price, it will probably do something less like invent brilliant IBM products, and more like hack the stock exchange, tell its computers to generate IBM's price by calling on a number in the AI's own memory, and then convert the universe to computronium in order to be able to represent as high a number as possible.
To build a superintelligence that actually maximizes IBM's share price in a normal way that the CEO of IBM would approve of would require solving the friendly AI problem but then changing a couple of lines of code. Part of what SIAI should be (and as far as I know, is) doing is trying to convince people like selfish IBM researchers that making an UnFriendly superintelligence would be a really bad idea even by their own selfish standards.
Another part is coming up with some friendly AI design ideas so that, if IBM is unusually sane and politicians are unusually sane and everyone is sane and we can make it to 2100 without killing ourselves via UnFriendly AI, then maybe someone will have a Friendly AI in the pipeline so we don't have to gamble on making it to 2200.
Also, the first rule of SIAI's assassinate unfriendly AI researchers program is don't talk about the assassinate unfriendly AI researchers program.
Not if their goal is deterrence, which leads me to conclude that they don't have an assassination program.
Taking murder laws into account, I expect a scenario where UFAI researchers tend to turn up dead under mysterious circumstances without any group credibly claiming responsibility would more effectively deter UFAI research than one where a single rogue research institute openly professes an assassination policy.
Hypothetically speaking.
Do-gooding terrorists relatively frequenly claim responsibility for their actions. For instance, consider the case of Anonymous.
Considering that nearly all terrorists probably think of themselves as do-gooders, I'm not sure how you separate a pool of actual do-gooding terrorists large enough to draw meaningful inferences about it.
Terrorist groups relatively frequenly claim responsibility for their actions.