= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation - 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 (343)
There is no energy minimum, if your goal is Friendliness. There is no "correct" answer. No matter what your AI does, no matter what architecture it uses, with respect to human goals and concerns, there is going to be a sizable percentage to whom it is unequivocally Unfriendly.
This isn't an image problem. The first problem you have to solve in order to train the system is - what are you training it to do?
You're skipping the actual difficult issue in favor of an imaginary, and easy to solve, issue.
However there are a lot of "wrong" answers.
Unfriendly is an equivocal term.
"Friendliness" is ambiguous. It can mean safety, ie not making things worse, or it can mean making things better, creating paradise on Earth.
Friendliness in the second sense is a superset of morality. A friendly AI will be moral, a moral AI will not necessarily be friendly.
"Unfriendliness" is similarly ambiguous: an unfriendly AI may be downright dangerous; or it might have enough grasp of ethics to be safe, but not enough to be able to make the world a much more fun place for humans. Unfriendliness in the second sense is not, strictly speaking a safety issue.
A lot of people are able to survive the fact that some institutions, movements and ideologies are unfriendly to them, for some value of unfriendly. Unfriendliness doesn't have to be terminal.
Everything is equivocal to someone. Do you disagree with my fundamental assertion?
I can't answer unequivocally for the reasons given.
There won't be a sizeable percentage to whom the AI is unfriendly in the sense of obliterating them.
There might well be a percentage to whom the AI is unfriendly in some business as usual sense.
Obliterating them is only bad by your ethical system. Other ethical systems may hold other things to be even worse.
Irrelevant.
You responded to me in this case. It's wholly relevant to my point that You-Friendly AI isn't a sufficient condition for Human-Friendly AI.