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.

Zack_M_Davis comments on Why Politics are Important to Less Wrong... - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: OrphanWilde 21 February 2013 04:24PM

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

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 21 February 2013 07:31:15PM 18 points [-]

I imagine a Friendly AI, I imagine a hands-off benefactor who permits people to do anything they wish to which won't result in harm to others.

Yeah, I like personal freedom, too, but you have to realize that this is massively, massively underspecified. What exactly constitutes "harm", and what specific mechanisms are in place to prevent it? Presumably a punch in the face is "harm"; what about an unexpected pat on the back? What about all other possible forms of physical contact that you don't know how to consider in advance? If loud verbal abuse is harm, what about polite criticism? What about all other possible ways of affecting someone via sound waves that you don't know how to consider in advance? &c., ad infinitum.

Does anybody envisage a Friendly AI which doesn't correspond more or less directly with their own political beliefs?

I'm starting to think this entire idea of "having political beliefs" is crazy. There are all sorts of possible forms of human social organization, which result in various outcomes for the humans involved; how am I supposed to know which one is best for people? From what I know about economics, I can point out some reasons to believe that market-like systems have some useful properties, but that doesn't mean I should run around shouting "Yay Libertarianism Forever!" because then what happens when someone implements some form of libertarianism, and it turns out to be terrible?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 21 February 2013 09:56:22PM 11 points [-]

I'm starting to think this entire idea of "having political beliefs" is crazy.

Most of my "political beliefs" is awareness of specific failures in other people's beliefs.

Comment author: ikrase 22 February 2013 11:02:49AM 2 points [-]

That's fairly common, and rarely realized, I think.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 February 2013 08:54:15PM 1 point [-]

Fairly common among rational (I don't mean LW-style) people. But I also know people who really believe things, and it's kind of scary.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 22 February 2013 04:33:19AM 4 points [-]

All formulations of human value are massively underspecified.

I agree that expecting humans to know what sorts of things would be good for humans in general is terrible. The problem is that we also can't get an honest report of what people think would be good for them personally because lying is too useful/humans value things hypocritically.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 February 2013 07:40:27PM *  5 points [-]

These examples also only compare things with status quo. Status quo is most likely itself "harm" when compared to many of the alternatives.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 21 February 2013 08:01:30PM 6 points [-]

There are many more ways to arrange things in a defective manner than an effective one. I'd consider deviations from the status quo to be harmful until proven otherwise.

Comment author: torekp 22 February 2013 12:19:29AM 3 points [-]

Or in other words: most mutations are harmful.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 22 February 2013 12:26:34AM 1 point [-]

(Fixed the wording to better match the intended meaning: "compared to the many alternatives" -> "compared to many of the alternatives".)