= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mwengler 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)
The natural selection needs time.
If we travel across the universe, and meet an AI who travelled across the universe before it met us, we can assume there was some kind of "evolutionary" pressure on this AI.
If we build a new AI, not knowing what exactly we are doing (especially if we tried some really bad idea like: "just connect the neurons randomly, give it huge computing power, and see what happens; trust me, the superintelligence will discover the one true morality"), there is no natural selection yet, and the new AI may do pretty much anything.
More precisely, natural selection needs iterations. Living things with much shorter life cycles than humans evolve a whole lot more quickly than humans. Bacteria have evolved strains that resist antibiotics, and we have not had antibiotics for even one-tenth the time they would need to be around to influence the human genome very much.
The point being an AI which spews slightly varied copies of itself far and wide may evolve quite a lot faster than a human. Or, essentially the same thing, an AI which runs simulations of variations of itself to see which have potential in the real world, and emits many and varied copies of those might evolve on afterburners compared to DNA mediated evolution.