Comment on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:05:04 GMT

Then you say that it implies a further controversial conclusion that many around here disagree with

I'm not quite sure that many around here disagree with it as such; I may be misinterpreting User:timtyler, but the claim isn't necessarily that arbitrary superintelligences will contribute to "moral progress", the claim is that the superintelligences that are actually likely to be developed some decades down the line are likely to contribute to "moral progress". Presumably if SingInst's memetic strategies succeed or if the sanity waterline rises then this would at least be a reasonable expectation, especially given widely acknowledged uncertainty about the exact extent to which value is fragile and uncertainty about what kinds of AI architectures are likely to win the race. This argument is somewhat different than the usual "AI will necessarily heed the ontologically fundamental moral law" argument, and I'm pretty sure User:timtyler agrees that caution is necessary when working on AGI.

Discuss