Because there’s so much of it?
TAG
Karma: 202 (LW), 0 (AF)
NewTop
That was worth asking. If there really are advantages to blackmail, a lot of 20$ bills have been left lying on the ground.
s/tenancy/tendency
Some things are acceptable on small quantities but unacceptable in large ones. You don’t want to incentivise those things.
So it won’t convince any philosophers if you talk about mAIry setting a preexisting Boolean.
Not all philosophers are qualiaphiles.
It doesn’t match a certain way of defining “information”. But some people are quite happy with notions of information that aren’t tied to a subject. You can reconcile the two by saying that objective information is potential subjective information.
How does this theory distinguish time from space? If I look at ever wider and wider regions of space, I can obtain more and more information. Similarly with scale… looking at things in finer detail makes more information available.
There are no intensive infinities in physics. That roughly means you cannot have an infinite amount of something in a finite volume of space. It doesn’t stop you you having an infinite amount of space.
The issue is whether introspection would be retained.
That depends on what you mean by observations and evidence. If we preserved the subjective, introspective access to consciousness, then consciousness would be preserved… logically. But we can not do that practically. Practically, we can preserve externally observable functions and behaviour, but we can’t be sure that doing that preserves consciousness.
No, I would say I can’t be less conscious than I observe.
You didn’ say that. As a premise, it begs the whole question. Or it supposed to be a conclusion?
Sure, replacement by silicon could preserve my evaluations, and therefore my observations
A functional duplicate of yourself would give the same responses to questions, to have the same beliefs, loosely speaking… but it is quite possible for some of those responses to have been rendered false. For instance, your duplicate would initially believe itself to be a real boy made of flesh and bone.
None of them is clear, and the overall structure isn’t clear.
Can you be less conscious than you observe?
Is “changing the parts of me” supposed to be some sort of replacement-by-silicon scenario?
Is an “evaluation” supposed to be a correct evaluation?
Does “has the same evaluations as me” mean “makes the same judgments about itself as I would about myself”?
3 ⇒ 5. Anything that makes the same observations as me is as concious as me.
As per my first question, if an observation is some kind of infallible introspection of your own consciousness, that is true. OTOH, if if it some kind of external behaviour, not necessarily. Even if you reject p-zombies, a silicon replacement is not a p zombie abd could lack consciousness.
I still don’t see how the conclusion follows.
If morality is (are) seven billion utility functions, then a legal system will be a poor match for it (them).
But there are good reasons for thinking that can’t be the case. For one thing, people can have preferences that are intuitively immoral. If a psychopath wants to murder, that does not make murder moral.
For another, it is hard to see what purpose morality serves when there is no interaction between people. Someone who is alone on a desert island iskand has no need of rules and against murder because there is no one to murder, and no need of rules against theft because there is no one to steal, and from and so on.
If morality is a series of negotiations and trade offs about preferences, then the law can match it closely. We can answer the question “why is murder illegal” with “because murder is wrong”.
Making sure an AI has aligned values and strong controls against value drift is an extra constraint on the AI design process. This constraint appears likely to be very costly at both design and run time, so if the first human level AIs deployed aren’t value aligned, it seems very difficult for aligned AIs to catch up and become competitive
Making sure that an AI has good enough controllability is very much part of the design process, because a completely uncontrollable AI is no good to anyone.
Full value alignment is different and probably much more difficult. There is a hard and an easy control problem.
I was mainly making the point that insider trading is an illegal activity compounded of legal activities.
Insider trading isn’t just a market adjustment, it is also an unfair advantage.
Do you mean outward, behavioural style observation, or introspection.
I find many of the views you haven’t updated from implausible.
According to Trivers, 2⁄3 of communication is gossip. A world with strong norms against it would look very different to our own.
Theyre not structured that much for elites. We don’t have Lese Majeste laws, and we do have free speech and press.