The claim that “AI goal systems cannot be built around English statements” is not supported by the page it links to. Any solution humans might invent to the FAI problem is going to be renderable as English statements, so this implies that the FAI problem is unsolvable. If you want it solved, you should not make unsupported public statements that it cannot be solved.
The claim “Can you patch this problem? No.” is supported by the same link I just mentioned. One solution is to define the AI’s notion of human values in terms of things that happened before the AI started running, so the AI doesn’t get to satisfy its notion of human values by modifying humans to want something else. If you want the problem to be solved, you shouldn’t put easily fixable bad ideas out there and then make a wrongly supported claim that patches don’t work. This fairly obvious easy fix sure looks like a patch.
Your choices seem to indicate that you want to discourage your readers from solving the problem. What are you trying to accomplish here?
The claim that “AI goal systems cannot be built around English statements” is not supported by the page it links to. Any solution humans might invent to the FAI problem is going to be renderable as English statements, so this implies that the FAI problem is unsolvable. If you want it solved, you should not make unsupported public statements that it cannot be solved.
The cited link https://www.lesswrong.com/lw/ld/the_hidden_complexity_of_wishes makes the more plausible claim that short intuitive English statements don’t make good wishes, and therefore don’t make good FAI solutions. I agree with that claim.
The claim “Can you patch this problem? No.” is supported by the same link I just mentioned. One solution is to define the AI’s notion of human values in terms of things that happened before the AI started running, so the AI doesn’t get to satisfy its notion of human values by modifying humans to want something else. If you want the problem to be solved, you shouldn’t put easily fixable bad ideas out there and then make a wrongly supported claim that patches don’t work. This fairly obvious easy fix sure looks like a patch.
Your choices seem to indicate that you want to discourage your readers from solving the problem. What are you trying to accomplish here?