This post contains my initial thoughts after reading Prof. Ruth Chang's chapter "Value Incomparability and Incommensurability" in the Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. All text in quotation marks are copied directly from the chapter. Two items are incommensurable if they cannot be placed on the same scale—the same measure—for direct...
Much of this post comes from the ideas presented in this paper. I assume the central claim of the paper; that AGI systems should posses the right to make contracts, hold property, and bring tort claims. In this post I aim to flesh out some ideas from the paper that...
Assume the goal of AI research is to build superintelligent decision-making systems. If we successfully develop and deploy such systems, it will likely no longer make sense for humans to work many, or even most, jobs. The duties humans must still perform will radically differ from those of today. In...
This post contains my initial thoughts after reading Prof. Ruth Chang's chapter "Value Incomparability and Incommensurability" in the Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. All text in quotation marks are copied directly from the chapter.
Two items are incommensurable if they cannot be placed on the same scale—the same measure—for direct comparison. Formally, two items are incomparable if “it is false that any positive, basic, binary value relation holds between them with respect to a covering consideration, V”. I will leave a more complete definition of these terms to the aforementioned paper, but in short:
Thank you for your comment and some great points!
So there is no inherent tension between the amount of prime-number-computing it can do and the amount of work it can do on other useful tasks (e.g. running a power plant), because doing a useful task might change what computing resources are available to the AI.
I agree with you on this. Would you buy my argument on comparative advantage if we assume that superintelligent systems cannot modify/improve/replicate themselves? If we assume that superintelligent systems are "fixed-size entities"? If still no, then can you highlight additional points you disagree with?
... (read more)But if one of the people is actually an alien capable of splitting down the middle
Much of this post comes from the ideas presented in this paper. I assume the central claim of the paper; that AGI systems should posses the right to make contracts, hold property, and bring tort claims. In this post I aim to flesh out some ideas from the paper that specifically pertain to AI alignment rather than AGI governance.
In a world where AGIs are superintelligent and outperform humans in every economically important task, how do we ensure humanity's survival and maintain a stable economic and social system? This proposal suggests a mechanism for aligning superintelligent systems with human interests, preventing catastrophic outcomes like mass unemployment, resource inequality, or the possibility of AGIs... (read 661 more words →)
Assume the goal of AI research is to build superintelligent decision-making systems. If we successfully develop and deploy such systems, it will likely no longer make sense for humans to work many, or even most, jobs. The duties humans must still perform will radically differ from those of today. In this essay, I am concerned with the transformation of labor resulting from superintelligent systems.
If superintelligent AI systems are created, our world economic and social systems will likely significantly depart from what they are today. Like the revolutions of the 20th century, the worker is at the center of desired reforms - whether this worker is an agrarian, proletariat, or knowledge worker. I... (read 694 more words →)