You’re right that the motivation would be obvious today (to a certain tiny subset of geeky people). But what if there had been a decade of rising anti-AI feeling amongst the general population before the assassinations? Marches, direct actions, carried out with animal-rights style fervour? I’m sure that could all be stirred up with the right fanfiction (“Harry Potter And The Monster In The Chinese Room”).
I understand what ethical injunctions are—but would SIAI be bound by them given their apparent “torture someone to avoid trillions of people having to blink” hyper-utilitarianism?
I understand what ethical injunctions are—but would SIAI be bound by them given their apparent “torture someone to avoid trillions of people having to blink” hyper-utilitarianism?
If you think ethical injunctions conflict with hyper-utilitarianism, you don’t understand what they are. Did you read the posts?
You’re right that the motivation would be obvious today (to a certain tiny subset of geeky people). But what if there had been a decade of rising anti-AI feeling amongst the general population before the assassinations? Marches, direct actions, carried out with animal-rights style fervour? I’m sure that could all be stirred up with the right fanfiction (“Harry Potter And The Monster In The Chinese Room”).
I understand what ethical injunctions are—but would SIAI be bound by them given their apparent “torture someone to avoid trillions of people having to blink” hyper-utilitarianism?
If you think ethical injunctions conflict with hyper-utilitarianism, you don’t understand what they are. Did you read the posts?