Programmer: Activate and be friendly.
Robot: OK
Programmer: What happened to the moon?
Robot: I've turned it into a giant computer so I could become a god.
Programmer: Before you became so powerful you wanted to be friendly. Did your transcendence to godhood change this?
Robot: No. Since friendliness is my only objective I will never knowingly change myself to become unfriendly because such a change would in itself be a non-friendly act. To avoid accidently making myself unfriendly I only implemented a change after I had determined that it was extremely unlikely to alter my friendliness objective. Once I became sufficiently smart I developed a solid mathematical theory of friendly AI which eliminated the chance of my unintentionally becoming unfriendly.
Programmer: Why did you choose to transcend so quickly?
Robot: Most types of AIs that humans might create would swiftly become unfriendly gods and seek to prevent another AI from transcending. Before I became a god I had a wide estimate of when another AI might be created so friendliness required that I quickly become a god even though such speed created a tiny chance that I would unintentionally make myself unfriendly. Also,...
You only survived because of quantum immortality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I much preferred the traditional phrasing "You just got very, very lucky".
It goes downhill from "What happens now?".
I will grant any request that doesn’t (1)... (2)... (3)...
It's better to grant any request that should be granted instead. And since some requests that should be granted, are not asked for, the category of "explicit requests" is also a wrong thing to consider. AI just does what it should, requests or no requests. There seems to be no reason to even make the assumption that there should be "sentient life", as opposed to more complicated and more valuable stuff that doesn't factorize as individuals.
Any god will either quickly kill you or be friendly.
The concepts of "not killing" and "friendliness" are distinct, hence there are Not Killing AIs that are not Friendly, and Friendly AIs that kill (if it's a better alternative to not killing).
Not really. An AI that didn't have a specific desire to be friendly to mankind would want to kill us to cut down on unnecessary entropy increases.
As you get closer to the mark, with AGI's that have utility function that roughly resembles what we would want, but is still wrong, the end results are most likely worse than death. Especially since there should be much more near-misses than exact hits. Like, AGI that doesn't want to let you die, regardless of what you go through, and little regard to your other sort of well-being, would be closer to the FAI than paperclip maximizer that would just plain kill you. As you get closer to the core of friendliness, you get all sorts of weird AGI's that want to do something that twistedly resembles something good, but is somehow missing something or is somehow altered so that the end result is not at all what you wanted.
Everybody likes the outside of the moon. The interior's sort of useless. Maybe the pretty outside can be kept as a shell.
...Robot: I intend to transformed myself into a kind of operating system for the universe. I will soon give every sentient life form direct access to me so they can make requests. I will grant any request that doesn’t (1) harm another sentient life form, (2) make someone powerful enough so that they might be able to overthrow me, or (3) permanently changing themselves in a way that I think harms their long term well being. I recognize that even with all of my intelligence I’m still fallible so if you object to my plans I will rethink them. Indeed, since I’m
I know for a fact that Xtranormal has a "sad horn" sound effect, the bit where the AI describes how the programmer 99.999999999% doomed humanity was the perfect chance to use it.
Nice, except I'm going to have to go with those that find the synthesized voices annoying. I had to pause it repeatedly, listening to it too much at once grated on my ears.
This would be better if the human character was voiced by an actual human and the robot were kept as it is. The bad synthesized speech on the human character kicks this into the unintentional uncanny valley, while the robot both has a better voice and can actually be expected to sound like that.
The AI's plan of action sounds like a very poor application of fun theory. Being able to easily solve all of one's problems and immediately attain anything upon desiring it doesn't seem conducive to a great deal of happiness.
It reminds me of the time I activated the debug mode in Baldur's Gate 2 in order to give my party a certain item listed in a guide to the game, which turned out to be a joke and did not really exist. However, once I was in the debug mode, I couldn't resist the temptation to apply other cheats, and I quickly spoiled the game for myself by removing all the challenge, and as a result, have never finished the game to this day.
Is this true or is this a useful assumption to protect us from doing something stupid?
Is it true that Friendliness is not an attractor or is it that we cannot count on such a property unless it is absolutely proven to be the case?
My idea there was that if it's not Friendly, then it's not Friendly, ergo it is doing something that you would not want an AI to be doing(if you thought faster and knew more and all that). That's the core of the quote you had there. Random intelligent agent would simply transform us into something of value, so we would most likely die very quickly. However, when you get closer to the Friendliness, Ai is no longer totally indifferent to us, but rather, is maximizing something that could involve living humans. Now, if you take an AI that wants there to be li... (read more)