= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Trapping AIs via utility indifference - 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 (32)
A pretty reasonable analogy (using lots of negative connotations and terms, though). What specifically is it that you find horrible about the idea?
Creating UFAI.
If that's a worry, then you must think there's a hole in the setup (assume the master AI is in the usual box, with only a single output, and that it's incinerated afterwards). Are you thinking that any (potentially) UFAI will inevitably find a hole we missed? Or are you worried that methods based around controlling potential UFAI will increase the odds of people building them, rather than FAIs?
There's holes in EVERY setup, the reason setups aren't generally useless is because if a human can't find the hole in order to plug it the another human is not likely to find it in order to escape through it.
The AI still has a motive to escape in order to prepare to optimize its sliver. It doesn't necessarily need us to ensure it escapes faster in its sliver.
What does this translate to in terms of the initial setup, not the analogous one?