= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
notsonewuser comments on The Meaning of Right - 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 (147)
As I've stated before, we are all morally obliged to prevent Eliezer from programming an AI. For according to this system, he is morally obliged to make his AI instantiate his personal morality. But it is quite impossible that the complicated calculation in Eliezer's brain should be exactly the same as the one in any of us: and so by our standards, Eliezer's morality is immoral. And this opinion is subjectively objective, i.e. his morality is immoral and would be even if all of us disagreed. So we are all morally obliged to prevent him from inflicting his immoral AI on us.
This is a really, really hasty non-sequitur. Eliezer's morality is probably extremely similar to mine; thus, the world be a much, much better place, even according to my specification, with an AI running Eliezer's morality as opposed no AI running at all (or, worse, a paperclip maximizer). Eliezer's morality is absolutely not immoral; it's my morality +- 1% error, as opposed to some other nonhuman goal structure which would be unimaginably bad on my scale.