= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dhasenan comments on Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans) - 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 (87)
People doing this I think is a problem because people suck at genuinely deciding based on the issues. I would rather live in a society where people were such that they could be trusted with the responsibility to push guys in front of trains if they had sufficient grounds to reasonably believe this was a genuine positive action. But knowing that people are not such, I would much rather they didn't falsely believe they were, even if it sometimes causes suboptimal decisions in train scenarios.
I don't think you can automatically call a suboptimal decision a mistake.
This actually has a real-life equivalent, in the situation of having to shoot down a plane that is believed to be in the control of terrorists and flying towards a major city. I would not want to be in the position of that fighter pilot, but I would also want him to fire.
And I'm much more willing to trust a FAI with that call than any human.
Huh? You wouldn't call a decision that results in an unnecessary loss of life a mistake, but rather a suboptimal decision? Note that I altered the hypothetical situation in the comment and this "suboptimal decision" was labeled a mistake in the event that a 3rd party would come up with a superior decision (ie. one that would save all the lives)
Edited: There's no FAI we can trust yet and this particular detail seems to be about the friendliness of an AI, so your belief seems a little out of place in this context, but nevermind that since if there were an actual FAI, I suppose I'd agree.
I think there's potential for severe error in the logic present in the text of the post and I find it proper to criticize the substance of this post, despite it being 4 years old.
Anyway for an omniscient being not putting any weight on the potential of error would seem reasonable.
I might decide to take a general, consistent strategy due to my own limitations. In this example, the limitation is that if I feel justified in engaging in this sort of behavior on occasion, I will feel justified employing it on other occasions with insufficient justifications.
If I employed a different general strategy with a similar level of simplicity, it would be less optimal.
Other strategies exist that are closer to optimal, but my limitations preclude me from employing them.
Of course there is. If you can show a specific error, that would be great.