Dr_Manhattan comments on Stuart Russell: AI value alignment problem must be an "intrinsic part" of the field's mainstream agenda - Less Wrong

25 Post author: RobbBB 26 November 2014 11:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (39)
Tags: stuart russell edge

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 26 November 2014 02:10:58PM *  -1 points [-]

Human beings do not have values that are provably aligned with the values of other human beings.

Sure, but we "happily" compromise. AI should be able to understand and implement the compromise that is overall best for everyone.

Any AI that does value something infinitely will not have human values

AI can value the "best compromise" infinitely :). But agreed nothing else.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 26 November 2014 02:22:16PM *  0 points [-]

But if an AI can compromise on some fuzzy or simplified set if values, what happened to the full complexity and fragility of human value?

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 26 November 2014 09:30:06PM 0 points [-]

Why does the compromise have to be a function of simplified values? I don't think I implied that.

Comment author: Unknowns 26 November 2014 02:46:08PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure what it would mean exactly to value the best compromise infinitely, since part of that compromise would be the refusal to accept a sufficiently bad Mugging, which implies a utility bound.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit