At the same time, the lesson to be learned is that useful ai can have a utility function which is pretty mundane—e.g. “find a fast route from point A to point B while minimizing the chances of running off the road or running into any people or objects.”
Self-driving cars aren’t piloted by AGIs in the first place, let alone dangerous “world-optimization” AGIs.
Similarly, instead of telling AI to “improve human welfare” we can tell it to do things like “find ways to kill cancerous cells while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.” The higher level decisions about improving human welfare can be left to the traditional institutions—legislatures, courts, and individual autonomy.
The whole point of Friendly AI is that we want something which is more effective at improving human welfare than our existing institutions. Our existing institutions are, by FAI standards, Unfriendly and destructive. Not existentially destructive, this is true (except on rare occasions like World War II), but neither are they trustworthy when handed, for instance, power over the life-and-death of Earth’s ecosystem (which they are currently failing to save, despite our having no other planet to go to).
I don’t engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty, i.e. misrepresenting my posts. If anyone not on my *(&^%-list is curious, I am happy to provide references.
I don’t engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty, i.e. misrepresenting my posts. If anyone not on my *(&^%-list is curious, I am happy to provide references.
I applaud your decision to not engage (as a good general strategy given your state of belief—the specifics of the conflict do not matter). I find it usually works best to do so without announcing it. Or, at least, by announcing it sparingly with extreme care to minimize the appearance of sniping.
Self-driving cars aren’t piloted by AGIs in the first place, let alone dangerous “world-optimization” AGIs.
The whole point of Friendly AI is that we want something which is more effective at improving human welfare than our existing institutions. Our existing institutions are, by FAI standards, Unfriendly and destructive. Not existentially destructive, this is true (except on rare occasions like World War II), but neither are they trustworthy when handed, for instance, power over the life-and-death of Earth’s ecosystem (which they are currently failing to save, despite our having no other planet to go to).
[ . . . ]
I don’t engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty, i.e. misrepresenting my posts. If anyone not on my *(&^%-list is curious, I am happy to provide references.
I applaud your decision to not engage (as a good general strategy given your state of belief—the specifics of the conflict do not matter). I find it usually works best to do so without announcing it. Or, at least, by announcing it sparingly with extreme care to minimize the appearance of sniping.