= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, Nov. 17 - Nov. 23, 2014 - 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 (322)
http://selenite.livejournal.com/282731.html
A discussion of constraining an AI by building in detailed contracts and obedience to laws against theft and criminal behavior.
I don't think this is obviously correct (if nothing else, parts of a complex set of rules can interact unpredictably), but these are the tools that humans have developed for dealing with semi-malign natural intelligences, so we should at least take a look at them.
Laws are useful to prevent behavior where you know what kind of behavior you want to forbid. They are often possible to game and need judging to interpret what happens in edge cases.
Copying laws and contracts might not be the complete solution, but there's a lot of stored experience in the legal system which could be worth studying.
We know some of the behavior we want to forbid-- we definitely don't want the AI to take our atoms. Well, almost definitely.
Would it be a good outcome if the F?AI made really good simulations of us in a well-done simulated environment so that it was possible to have a lot more people?
Some medical interventions probably include taking atoms. Even something as simply as disposing of bodily secretions could be problematic.