= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lavalamp comments on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1 - 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 (161)
I don't see the circularity. "human" is a subset of "person"; there's no reason an AI that is a "person" will have "human" values. Also, just thinking of the AI as being human-like doesn't actually make it human-like.
I dont' see the relevance. Goetzel isn't talking about building non-human persons.
If you design an AI on x-like principles, it will probably be X-like, unless something goes wrong.
Ah, I may not have gotten all the context.
If "something goes wrong" with high probability, it will probably not be X-like.