= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dr_Manhattan comments on Stuart Russell: AI value alignment problem must be an "intrinsic part" of the field's mainstream agenda - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (39)
Sure, but we "happily" compromise. AI should be able to understand and implement the compromise that is overall best for everyone.
AI can value the "best compromise" infinitely :). But agreed nothing else.
But if an AI can compromise on some fuzzy or simplified set if values, what happened to the full complexity and fragility of human value?
Why does the compromise have to be a function of simplified values? I don't think I implied that.
I'm not sure what it would mean exactly to value the best compromise infinitely, since part of that compromise would be the refusal to accept a sufficiently bad Mugging, which implies a utility bound.