= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Reay comments on The Ape Constraint discussion meeting. - 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 (23)
I thought it wasn't so much "do what we would want you to do if we were better", as "be good to humans, using the definitions of 'good' and 'humans' that we'd supply if we were better at anticipating what will actually benefit us and the consequences of particular ways of wording constraints".
Because couldn't it decide that a better human would be purely altruistic and want to turn over all the resources in the universe to a species able to make more efficient use of them?
I have more questions than answers, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who, at this stage, was 100% certain that they knew a foolproof way to word things.
I agree with you about not knowing any foolproof wording. In terms of what Eliezer had in mind though, here's what the LessWrong wiki has to say on CEV:
So it's not just, "be good to humans," but rather, "do what (idealized) humans would want you to." I think it's an open question whether those would be the same thing.