= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lyghtcrye comments on Definition of AI Friendliness - 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 (7)
That question is basically the hard question at the root of the difficulty of friendly AI. Building an AI that would optimize to increase or decrease a value through its actions is comparably easy, but determining how to evaluate actions into a scale that measures results in a comparison with human values is incredibly difficult. Determining and evaluating AI friendliness is a very hard problem, and you should consider reading more about the issue so that you don't come off as naive.
(Not being mistaken is a better purpose than appearing sophisticated.)
I'm not sure why you phrased your comment as a parenthetical, could you explain that? Also, while I agree with your statement, appearing competent to engage in discussion is quite important for enabling one to take part in discussion. I don't like seeing someone who is genuinely curious get downvoted into oblivion.
The problem here in not appearing incompetent, but being wrong/confused. This is the problem that should be fixed by reading the literature. It is more efficient to fix it by reading the literature rather than by engaging in a discussion, even given good intentions. Fixing the appearances might change the attitude of other people towards preferring the option of discussion, but I don't think the attitude should change on that basis, reading the literature is still more efficient, so fixing appearances would mislead rather than help.
(I use parentheticals to indicate that an observation doesn't work as a natural element of the preceding conversation, but instead raises a separate point that is more of a one-off, probably not worthy of further discussion.)