Strong upvote based on the first sentence. I often wonder why people think an ASI/AGI will want anything that humans do or even see the same things that biological life sees as resources. But it seems like under the covers of many arguments here that is largely assumed true.
I am a bit confused on point 2. Other than trading or doing it your selfs what other ways are you thinking about getting something?
That is certainly a more directly related, non-obvious aspect for verification. Thanks.
I assumed John was pointing at verifying that perhaps the chemicals used in the production of the chair might have some really bad impact on the environmnet, start causing a problem with the food chain eco system and make food much scarcers for everyone -- including the person who bought the chair -- in the meaningfully near future. Something a long those lines.
As you note, verifying the chair functions as you want -- as a place to sit that is comfortable -- is pretty easy. Most of us probably do that without even really thinking about it. But will this chair "kill me" in the future is not so obvious or easy to assess.
I suspect at the core, this is a question about an assumption about evaluating a simple/non-complex world and doing so in an inherently complex world do doesn't allow true separability in simple and independant structures.
In terms of the hard to verify aspect, while it's true that any one person will face any number of challenges do we live in a world where one person does anything on their own?
How would the open-source model influence outcomes? When pretty much anyone can take a look, and persumable many do, does the level of verifcation, or ease of verification, improve in your model?
Kind of speculative on my part and nothing I've tried to research for the comment. I am wondering is the tort version of reasonableness is a good model for new, poorly understood technologies. Somewhat thinking about the picture in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CZQYP7BBY4r9bdxtY/the-best-lay-argument-is-not-a-simple-english-yud-essay distinguising between narrow AI and AGI.
Tort law reasonableness seems okay for narrow AI. I am not so sure about the AGI setting though.
So I wonder if a stronger liability model would not be better until we have a good bit more direct experience with more AGIish models and functionality/products and a better data set to assess.
The Public Choice type cynic in me has to wonder if the law is making a strong case for the tort version of liability under a reasonable man standard if I should not think it's more about limiting the liability for harms the companies might be enabling (I'm thinking what would we have if social media companies faced stronger obligations for what is posted on their networks rather that the imunity they were granted) and less about protecting the general society.
Over time perhaps liability moves more towards the tort world of a reasonable man but is that were this should start? Seems like a lower bar than is justified.
I find this rather exciting -- and clearly the cryonics implications are positive. But beyond that, and yes, this is really scifi down the road thinking here, the implications for education/learning and treatment of things like PTSD seems huge. Assuming we can figure out how to control these. Of course I'm ignoring some of the real down sides like manipulation of memory for bad reasons or an Orwellean application. I am not sure those types of risks at that large in most open societies.
Thanks. Just took a quick glance as the abstract but looks interesting. Will have something to read while waiting at the airport for a flight tomorrow.
Is that thought one that is generally shared for those working in the field of memory or more something that is new/cutting edge? It's a very interesting statement so if you have some pointers to a (not too difficult) a paper on how that works, or just had the time to write something up, I for one would be interested and greatful.
I really like the observation in your Further Thoughts point. I do think that is a problem people need to look at as I would guess many will view the government involvement from a acting in public interests view rather than acting in either self interest (as problematic as that migh be when the players keep changing) or from a special interest/public choice perspective.
Probably some great historical analysis already written about events in the past that might serve as indicators of the pros and cons here. Any historians in the group here?