On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> What is different in my theory is that it handles the case where "the > >> dominant theory turns unfriendly". The core of my thesis is that the > >> particular Friendliness that I/we are trying to reach is an > >> "attractor" -- > >> which means that if the dominant structure starts to turn unfriendly, it > >> is > >> actually a self-correcting situation. > >> > > > > Can you explain it without using the word "attractor"? > > Sure! Friendliness is a state which promotes an entity's own goals; > therefore, any entity will generally voluntarily attempt to return to that > (Friendly) state since it is in it's own self-interest to do so.
In my example it's also explicitly in dominant structure's self-interest to crush all opposition. You used a word "friendliness" in place of "attractor". > > > I can't see why > > sufficiently intelligent system without "brittle" constraints should > > be unable to do that. > > Because it may not *want* to. If an entity with Eliezer's view of > Friendliness has it's goals altered either by error or an exterior force, it > is not going to *want* to return to the Eliezer-Friendliness goals since > they are not in the entity's own self-interest. > It doesn't explain the behavior, it just reformulates your statement. You used a word "want" in place of "attractor". -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
