= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Natural selection defeats the orthogonality thesis - 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 (71)
I don't understand why this post is so clearly down-voted. I thinks its main point
is quite valid if steelmaned by
1) not assuming that every AGI automatically prevents value drift and mutation and
2) goal is not taken literally but in the same sense as genes have the main function of reproduction (existence of gene copies).
My understanding of AGI mechanics is that in general AGIs are subject to evolution. Could be that drift-preventing AGI win in the long run. But maybe there are just too few of them.
Note: I think one should consider the main part of the post only and not the provided and lengthy extracts; these should better have been linked to.
Changes in human DNA also aren't 100% natural selection. Effects like gene drift also make up a lot. Saying that reproduction is the ultimate goal of biological organisms isn't quite true for conventional definitions of goal. In pop evolutionary psychology that often get's conflated.
But even if it would be true for naturally evolved humans, AGI can be created via intelligent design. That means they can have real goals that are programmed into them. AGI can be created with a goal to do a task and then shut down. Deep Blue doesn't have a goal to exist in the conventional meaning of the word goal.
Crappy reasoning gets downvoted on LW even if it's possible to argue for the same position with good arguments.