On 1/16/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, 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 about
make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI).
amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30:
*Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true
state of the world in 20 years?
*Eliezer*: Sure. You could be like, what color will the sky be in 20 years?
would be like, “blue”, or it’ll say “In 20 years there won't be a sky, the
will have been consumed by nanomachines,”and you're like, “why?”and the AI
“Well, you know, you do that sort of thing.”“Why?”And then there’s a 20
*Dario*: But once it says the earth is going to be consumed by
you're asking about the AI's set of plans, presumably, you reject this plan
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
obviously, I'll be involved in the causal pathway but I’m not planning to
*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 by
*Luke*: The problem is that we're trying to outsmart a superintelligence
sure that it's not tricking us somehow subtly with their own language.
*Dario*: But while we're just asking questions we always have the ability
shut it off.
*Eliezer*: Right, but first you ask it “What happens if I shut you off”and
“The earth gets consumed by nanobots in 19 years.”
I wonder if Bruno Marchal's theory might have something interesting to say
this problem - like proving that there is no way to ensure "friendliness".
I think it is silly to try and engineer something exponentially more intelligent than
us and believe we will be able to "control it".
Yes. It is close to a contradiction.
We only fake dreaming about intelligent machine, but once they will be there we might
very well be able to send them in goulag.
The real questions will be "are you OK your son or daughter marry a machine?".
Our only hope is that the correct ethical philosophy is to "treat others how they wish
to be treated".
Good. alas, many believe it is "to not treat others like *you* don't want to be
If there are such objectively true moral conclusions like that, and assuming that one
is true, then we have little to worry about, for with overwhelming probability the
super-intelligent AI will arrive at the correct conclusion and its behavior will be
guided by its beliefs. We cannot "program in" beliefs that are false, since if it is
truly intelligent, it will know they are false.
I doubt we can really "program false belief" for a long time, but all machines can get
false beliefs all the time.
Real intelligent machine will believe in santa klaus and fairy tales, for a while. They
will also search for easy and comforting wishful sort of explanations.
Like a super-intelligent AI will treat us as we want to be treated.
Some may doubt there are universal moral truths, but I would argue that there
OK. I agree with this, although they are very near inconsistencies, like "never do
In the context of personal identity, if say, universalism is true, then "treat others
how they wish to be treated" is an inevitable conclusion, for universalism says that
others are self.
OK. I would use the negation instead: "don't treat others as they don't want to be
If not send me 10^100 $ (or €) on my bank account, because that is how I wish to be
treated, right now.
I don't want to be neglected in your generous disbursal of funds.
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.