= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Against easy superintelligence: the unforeseen friction argument - 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 (48)
A key point about intelligent agency is that it can produce positive noise as well as negative noise. Imagine someone who'd watched the slow evolution of life on Earth over the last billion years, looking at brainy hominids and thinking, "Well, these brains seem mighty efficient, maybe even a thousand times as efficient as evolution, but surely not everything will go as expected." They would be correct to widen their confidence intervals based on this "not everything will go as I currently expect" heuristic. They would be wrong to widen their confidence intervals only downward. Human intelligence selectively sought out and exploited the most positive opportunities.
Yes, but extra positive noise in the strong FOOM scenarios doesn't make much difference. If a bad AI fooms in 30 minutes rather than an hour, or even in 5 minutes, we're still equally dead.
Positive noise might mean being able to FOOM from a lower starting base.
Point taken, though I've already increased my probability of early FOOM ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad4bHtSXiFE )
And I stand by the point that most noise will be negative. Start changing random things in, say, the earth's ecosystem, may open great new opportunities, but is most likely to cost us than benefit us.