None of the simulation projects have gotten very far...this looks to me like it is a very long way out, probably hundreds of years.
Couldn't you say the same about AGI projects? It seems to me that one of the reasons that some people are being relatively optimistic about computable approximations to AIXI, compared to brain emulations, is that progress on EM's is easier to quantify.
(Since the linked article doesn't at a first glance talk about AI researchers, the title should be justified.)
In statements posted on the Internet, the ITS expresses particular hostility towards nanotechnology and computer scientists. It claims that nanotechnology will lead to the downfall of mankind, and predicts that the world will become dominated by self-aware artificial-intelligence technology. Scientists who work to advance such technology, it says, are seeking to advance control over people by 'the system'.
On the other hand, the mission of the SIAI is founded on the belief that if anyone succeeds at AGI without solving the Friendliness problem, they will destroy the world. Eliezer has said in an interview a year or two back that he does not think that anyone currently working on AGI has any chance of succeeding. But if not now, then some day the question will have to be faced:
What do you do if you really believe that someone's research has a substantial chance of destroying the world?
What do you do if you really believe that someone's research has a substantial chance of destroying the world?
Go batshit crazy.
Is thinking about policy entirely avoidable, considering that people occasionally need to settle on a policy or need to decide whether a policy is better complied with or avoided?
...people occasionally need to settle on a policy or need to decide whether a policy is better complied with or avoided?
One example would be the policy not to talk about politics. Authoritarian regimes usually employ that policy, most just fail to frame it as rationality.
Nope, not like that at all. What he's talking about is knowledge that's objectively harmful for someone to have.
What he's talking about is knowledge that's objectively harmful for someone to have.
Someone should make a list of knowledge that is objectively harmful. Could come in handy if you want to avoid running into it accidentally. Or we just ban the medium that is used to spread it, in this case natural language.
You're being facetious. No one is seriously disputing where the boundary between basilisk and non-basilisk lies, only what to do with the things on the basilisk side of the line.
No one is seriously disputing where the boundary between basilisk and non-basilisk lies...
This assumes that everyone knows where the boundary lies. The original post by Manfred either crossed the boundary or it didn't. In the case that it didn't, it only serves as a warning sign of where not to go. In the case that it did, how is your knowledge of the boundary not a case of hindsight bias?
It would be more sensible to check with other people, rather than assuming it's safe, before exposing the public to something that you know that a lot of people believe to be dangerous.
...before exposing the public to something that you know that a lot of people believe to be dangerous.
The pieces of the puzzle that Manfred put together can all be found on lesswrong. What do you suggest, that research into game and decision theory be banned?
I obviously think it's safe. Nobody's actually told me what they think though.
I obviously think it's safe.
Be careful to trust Manfred, he is known to have destroyed the Earth on at least one previous occasion.
View more: Prev
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
So, did anyone actually save Roko's comments before the mass deletion?
Google Reader fetches every post and comment that is being made on lesswrong. Editing or deleting won't remove it. All comments and posts that have ever been made are still there, saved by Google. You just have to add the right RSS feeds to Google Reader.