>>  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".

While it is "explicitly in dominant structure's self-interest to crush all 
opposition", I don't believe that doing so is OPTIMAL except in a *vanishingly* 
small minority of cases.  I believe that such thinking is an error of taking 
the most obvious and provably successful/satisfiable (but sub-optimal) action 
FOR A SINGLE GOAL over a less obvious but more optimal action for multiple 
goals.  Yes, crushing the opposition works -- but it is *NOT* optimal for the 
dominant structure's long-term self-interest (and the intelligent/wise dominant 
structure is clearly going to want to OPTIMIZE it's self-interest).

Huh?  I only used the work Friendliness as the first part of the definition as 
in "Friendliness is . . . . "  I don't understand your objection.

>>  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".

OK.  I'll continue to play . . . .  :-)

Replace "*want* to" with "*in it's self interest to do so*" and "not going to 
*want* to" with "*going to see that it is not in it's self-interest*" to yield
  Because it is not *in it's self interest to do so*.  If an entity with 
Eliezer's view of
  Friendliness has it's goals altered either by error or an exterior force, it 
is *going to 
  see that it is not in it's self-interest*  to return to the 
Eliezer-Friendliness goals since
  they are not in the entity's own self-interest.
Does that satisfy your objections?

-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to