Peterdjones comments on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (161)
This exposes a circularity in lesswrongian reasoning: if you think of an AI as fundamental non-person like, then there is a need to bolt on human values. If you think of it as human--like , then huma-like values are more likely to be inhrerent or acquired naturally through interaction.
I don't see the circularity. "human" is a subset of "person"; there's no reason an AI that is a "person" will have "human" values. Also, just thinking of the AI as being human-like doesn't actually make it human-like.
I dont' see the relevance. Goetzel isn't talking about building non-human persons.
If you design an AI on x-like principles, it will probably be X-like, unless something goes wrong.
Ah, I may not have gotten all the context.
If "something goes wrong" with high probability, it will probably not be X-like.