= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Document comments on Rationality Quotes August 2013 - 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 (733)
Are they a villain who "solves" people by removing them from their way?
(Alternative response: Does "everything" include the puzzle of identifying something that can't be reduced to a puzzle?)
... You can remove people as problems without doing so euphemistically, i.e. killing them.
If you befriend them, for example.
And, well, yes. That does count as a puzzle.
The statement just seems weird without any context, I guess. It certainly isn't narrow.
Would you trust an AI that was being friendly to you as an attempted "solution" to the "puzzle" you presented?
That depends, what sort of solution is it trying to find? If it's trying to maximize my happiness, that's all fine and dandy; if it's trying to minimize my capacity as an impediment to its acquisition of superior paperclip-maximizing hardware, I would object. Either way, I base my trust on the AI's goal, rather than its algorithms (assuming that the algorithms are effective at accomplishing that goal).
Well, no, but I would never trust an AI if I couldn't prove (or nobody I trusted could prove) it was Friendly with respect to me, period.
... not that it would much matter, but..
Also, relevance? I'm not really understanding your point in general. Certainly, problems need to be solved, but I would hope that your morality is included as a constraint...
But not necessarily if you're a fictional character, hence my initial question. I think my point is that I'm not convinced the quote actually means anything, either in its original context or in its use here; it's sounding like "everything" just means "things for which the statement is true".
Still don't understand. By definition, if something is hampering you, it presents a problem: sometimes the solution is "leave it alone, all possible 'solutions' are actually worse," but it's still something that bears thinking about.
It is somewhat tautological, I'll grant, but us poor imperfect humans occasionally find tautologies helpful.
This is similar to how I've interpreted it. The character comes from a pre-enlightenment society, and is considered one of the greatest intelligence agents largely due to his ability to get results where nobody else can. He privately attributes this success to a rational mind and extensive [chess] skill that trains him to approach things as though they can be solved. While "stop and think about problems like they were games to be won instead of chores to be blamed on someone else" may seem obvious to people used to thinking like that, it's a major shift for most people.