You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mitchell_Porter comments on Friendly AI and the limits of computational epistemology - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 08 August 2012 01:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 09 August 2012 04:56:12AM 1 point [-]

I agree that a totally accurate simulation of a philosopher ought to arrive at the same conclusions as the original. But a totally accurate simulation of a human being is incredibly hard to obtain.

I've mentioned that I have a problem with outsourcing FAI design to sim-humans, and that I have a problem with the assumption of "state-machine materialism". These are mostly different concerns. Outsourcing to sim-humans is just wildly impractical, and it distracts real humans from gearing up to tackle the problems of FAI design directly. Adopting state-machine materialism is something you can do, right now, and it will shape your methods and your goals.

The proverbial 500-subjective-year congress of sim-philosophers might be able to resolve the problem of state-machine materialism for you, but then so would the discovery of communications from an alien civilization which had solved the problem. I just don't think you can rely on either method, and I also think real humans do have a chance of solving the ontological problem by working on it directly.