= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Superintelligence 23: Coherent extrapolated volition - 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 (97)
The 'child' metaphor for SI is not very accurate. SIs can be designed and, most importantly, we have control over what their utility functions are.
I thought it's supposed to work like this: The first generation of AI are designed by us. The superintelligence is designed by them, the AI. We have initial control over what their utility functions are. I'm looking for a good reason for we should expect to retain that control beyond the superintelligence transition. No such reasons have been given here.
A different way to put a my point: Would a superintelligence be able to reason about ends? If so, then it might find itself disagreeing with our conclusions. But if not - if we design it to have what for humans would be a severe cognitive handicap - why should we think that subsequent generations of SuperAI will not repair that handicap?
You're making the implicit assumption that a runaway scenario will happen. A 'cognitive handicap' would, in this case, simply prevent the next generation AI from being built at all.
As I'm saying, it would be a lousy SI and not very useful. But it would be friendly.