EDIT: If I were picking nits, I would say, “‘Should’ does apply to paperclip maximizers—it is rational for X to make paperclips but it should not do so—however, paperclip maximizers don’t care and so it is pointless to talk about what they should do.” But the overall intent of the statement is correct—I disagree with its intent in neither anticipation nor morals—and in such cases I usually just say “Correct”. In this case I suppose that wasn’t the best policy, but it is my usual policy.
Correct.
EDIT: If I were picking nits, I would say, “‘Should’ does apply to paperclip maximizers—it is rational for X to make paperclips but it should not do so—however, paperclip maximizers don’t care and so it is pointless to talk about what they should do.” But the overall intent of the statement is correct—I disagree with its intent in neither anticipation nor morals—and in such cases I usually just say “Correct”. In this case I suppose that wasn’t the best policy, but it is my usual policy.
Of course, Kant distinguished between two different meanings of “should”: the hypothetical and the categorical.
If you want to be a better Go player, you should study the games of Honinbo Shusaku.
You should pull the baby off the rail track.
This seems useful here...
False. Be consistent.