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.

Zaine comments on Open Thread, June 2-15, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: TimS 02 June 2013 02:22AM

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

Comments (433)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Zaine 03 June 2013 05:56:13AM *  -1 points [-]

I have a question. Assume that non-profit MIRI develops a fAGI (I like the acronym this way). They realise they can use the fAGI to generate profit. Taking for granted they only wish to make enough profit to sustain the institution free of donor-support, would they then be able to switch to a for-profit institution, despite having created the fAGI while non-profit?

Everyone has found a way around the question; I asked it poorly, so I'll be clearer: if a piece of technology is developed at an institution dependent upon donations from private individuals to operate yet has no obligations to repay those individuals any form of equity - an institution that until this point has been called a 'non-profit' - can that institution then legally start profiting from their technology sans any obligation to their former donors? This may require country-specific answers.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 June 2013 06:51:53AM 10 points [-]

I have a question. Assume that non-profit MIRI develops a fAGI (I like the acronym this way). They realise they can use the fAGI to generate profit. Taking for granted they only wish to make enough profit to sustain the institution free of donor-support, would they then be able to switch to a for-profit institution, despite having created the fAGI while non-profit?

If MIRI (or anyone else) create an AGI that is friendly to them they can do whatever they goddamn please.

Comment author: Larks 03 June 2013 11:49:27AM 1 point [-]

Nitpick:

they can do whatever they goddamn please

They might not be able to do some things they want to do, but wouldn't want to want to do. But I agree that "making a profit" would no longer be a concern.

Comment author: drethelin 03 June 2013 06:47:33AM 9 points [-]

The assumption is that fAGI would render any questions of profit moot.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 04 June 2013 07:56:51PM 0 points [-]

This does not seem obvious to me. Humans have a strong competitive drive; I do not see why profit should necessarily drop out of a post-Friendly Singularity society, even if what we buy with our Shiny Future Moniez are perhaps status goods. Moreover, considerations of acausal trade to increase the probability of AI being Friendly seem to suggest that its inventors should get some sort of reward. This said, it is of course not clear that such a profit would be taken out in US dollars.

Comment author: TimS 03 June 2013 11:52:51AM -1 points [-]

Let's taboo "nonprofit." If a tax deductible charity starts making more than de minimis business profit, the charity is no longer eligible to offer tax deductions. But the purpose and mission of any charity is not tied to its tax status. In fact, there are many charities that haven't procedurally qualified to give tax deduction for donations.

But as others have said, I'm not sure why this would be a problem if MIRI had a foom fAGI.