Ultimately not constructive
yakimoff(Cody Yakimoff)
Karma: 3
An evening at a bar
Okay everyone, we have the options of:
I wrote the list in order of my preference. So please let me know if you have been lifetime banned from any of them
I am looking for papers that support or attack the argument that sufficiently intelligent AIs will be easier to safe because their world model will understand that we don’t want it to take our instructions as ruthlessly technical / precise, nor received in bad faith.
My argument that I want either supported or dis-proven is that it would know that we don’t want an outcome that looks good but one that is good by our mental definitions. It will be able to look at human decisions through history and in the present to understand this fuzziness and moderation.
Mahler 6 at the San Francisco Symphony
All, you’ll find me at Harper and Rye from 7:30PM onward. Call my telephone or text me
213 214 9462
Dazed and confused: Good olde’ walk around the Marin Headlands
Boxing lessons
Sibelius + drinks
Boxing at the gym
Scaremongering about an asteroid
Minor typo—I think you accidentally pasted this comment twice by LeCunn
It is disappointing that so much airtime was given to such dim-witted hosts. Are there not more reputable / intelligent people Eliezer could spend two hours talking to that don’t seem to have a memory reset every 20 minutes?
It is humorous to count how many times they raise the question “why can’t we make a good AI?”, followed by him explaining, followed by them asking again. On the third time they sounded even more astounded than the first two:
“Wait, so there is no way that we know of to make a good AI??”—around 1 hour 10 min
Edit: I understand and mostly agree with the down-votes but for God’s sake