= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Ethical dilemmas for paperclip maximizers - 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 (24)
My problem with this is easily summed up: that makes sense, if you simply transform the Clippy problem into human problems, by replacing 'paperclip' with 'human'. I don't even know how Clippy problems map onto human problems, so I can't smuggle my intuitions the other way into the Clippy problems (assuming the mapping is even bijective).
That's why I was trying to consider both the Clippy problems and the Human problems as a self replicating pattern problems. My human intuitions on Clippy problems might be flawed (since it isn't human), but my self replicating pattern intuitions on Clippy problems shouldn't have that same problem and I think they would map a lot better.