On 1/15/2014 11:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:46 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/15/2014 6:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI).
Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30:
*Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true
the state of the world in 20 years?
*Eliezer*: Sure. You could be like, what color will the sky be in 20
would be like, “blue”, or it’ll say “In 20 years there won't be a sky,
earth will have been consumed by nanomachines,”and you're like,
AI is like “Well, you know, you do that sort of thing.”“Why?”And then
20 page thing.
*Dario*: But once it says the earth is going to be consumed by
and you're asking about the AI's set of plans, presumably, you reject
immediately and preferably change the design of your AI.
*Eliezer*: The AI is like, “No, humans are going to do it.”Or the AI is
“well obviously, I'll be involved in the causal pathway but I’m not
*Dario*: But this is a plan you don't want to execute.
*Eliezer*: /All/the plans seem to end up with the earth being consumed
*Luke*: The problem is that we're trying to outsmart a
make sure that it's not tricking us somehow subtly with their own
*Dario*: But while we're just asking questions we always have the
just shut it off.
*Eliezer*: Right, but first you ask it “What happens if I shut you
says “The earth gets consumed by nanobots in 19 years.”
I wonder if Bruno Marchal's theory might have something interesting to
about this problem - like proving that there is no way to ensure
I think it is silly to try and engineer something exponentially more
than us and believe we will be able to "control it". Our only hope is that
correct ethical philosophy is to "treat others how they wish to be
there are such objectively true moral conclusions like that, and assuming
is true, then we have little to worry about, for with overwhelming
super-intelligent AI will arrive at the correct conclusion and its behavior
guided by its beliefs. We cannot "program in" beliefs that are false, since
is truly intelligent, it will know they are false.
Some may doubt there are universal moral truths, but I would argue that
In the context of personal identity, if say, universalism is true, then
others how they wish to be treated" is an inevitable conclusion, for
says that others are self.
I'd say that's a pollyannish conclusion. Consider how we treated homo
or even the American indians. And THOSE were 'selfs' we could interbreed
And today with our improved understanding, we look back on such acts with shame. Do you
expect that with continual advancement we will reach a state where we become proud of
If you doubt this, then you reinforce my point.
What's "this" refer to, sentence 1 or sentence 2? I don't expect us to become proud of
wiping out competitors, but I expect us to keep doing it.
With improved understanding, intelligence, knowledge, etc., we become less accepting of
violence and exploitation.
Or better at justifying it.
A super-intelligent process is only a further extension of this line of evolution in
thought, and I would not expect it to revert to a cave-man or imperialist mentality.
No, it might well keep us as pets and breed for docility the way we made dogs
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.