= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on An example of deadly non-general AI - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
Until they stumble upon an AI that lies, possibly inadvertently, and then we're dead...
But I do agree that general intelligence is more dangerous, it's just that narrow intelligence isn't harmless.
How do you convincingly lie without having the capability to think up a convincing lie?
Every statement an AI tells us will be a lie to some extent, simply in terms of being a simplification so that we can understand it. If we end up selecting against simplifications that reveal nefarious plans...
But the narrow AI I had above might not even be capable of lying - it might just simply spit out the drug design, with a list of estimated improvements according to the criteria it's been given, without anyone ever realising that "reduced mortality" was code for "everyone's dead already".
Not so. You can definitely ask questions about complicated things that have simple answers.
Yes, that was an exaggeration - I was thinking of most real-world questions.
I was thinking of most real-world questions that aren't of the form 'Why X?' or 'How do I X?'.
"How much/many X?" -> number
"When will X?" -> number
"Is X?" -> boolean
"What are the chances of X if I Y?" -> number
Also, any answer that simplifies isn't a lie if its simplified status is made clear.
Think you're telling the truth.
Or be telling the truth, but be misinterpreted.