RobbBB comments on The genie knows, but doesn't care - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (515)
Let's run with that idea. There's 'general-intelligence-1', which means "domain-general intelligence at a level comparable to that of a human"; and there's 'general-intelligence-2', which means (I take it) "domain-general intelligence at a level comparable to that of a human, plus the ability to solve the Turing Test". On the face of it, GI2 looks like a much more ad-hoc and heterogeneous definition. To use GI2 is to assert, by fiat, that most intelligences (e.g., most intelligent alien races) of roughly human-level intellectual ability (including ones a bit smarter than humans) are not general intelligences, because they aren't optimized for disguising themselves as one particular species from a Milky Way planet called Earth.
If your definition has nothing to recommend itself, then more useful definitions are on offer.
'Mean', 'right', 'rational', etc.
An AI doesn't need to be able to trick you in order for you to be able to give it instructions. All sorts of useful skills AIs have these days don't require them to persuade everyone that they're human.
Read the article you're commenting on. One of its two main theses is, in bold: The seed is not the superintelligence.
Yes. We should focusing on solving the values part of semantics, rather than the entire superset.
Doesn't matter. Give an ancient or a modern society arbitrarily large amounts of power overnight, and the end results won't differ in any humanly important way. There won't be any nights after that.
Setting aside the power issue: Because humans don't use 'smiles' or 'statements of approval' or any other string of virtues an AI researcher has come up with to date for its decision criteria. The specific proposals for making AI humanistic to date have all depended on fake utility functions, or stochastic riffs on fake utility functions.
Lots of easy questions were centuries old when they were solved. 'This is old, therefore I'm not going to think about it' is a bad pattern to fall into. If you think the orthogonality thesis is wrong, then give an argument establishing agnosticism or its negation.