|
|
|
|
|
|
by janalsncm
25 days ago
|
|
|
Seems like CEV replaces one problem (“what does humanity want?”) with more problems that are probably even harder to answer. First of all, calling it “coherent” extrapolated volition presupposes that there is such a thing. It doesn’t actually address the objection above, that there may be no such thing. It’s a bit like saying you solved car safety by presupposing a safe car. Second, it assumes that such a thing can be effectively measured, and there will be no problems or controversies with the extrapolation process itself. There may be several EVs to choose from, and at that point the framework has nothing to say. Maybe we just pick at random then I suppose. |
|
|
So... of course these questions are addressed in the 38 page essay that introduced the idea.
Specifically, it's not "calling it coherent", it's "assigning more importance to the parts that cohere than the parts that diverge" as one of the core principles (it's one philosopher's opinion, others disagree), with a lot of specific guidelines about how to prefer consensus or kicking decisions down the road and how to deal with complications like "what about dolphins" or "what about our great-great-grandchildren who will be as insane in our eyes as we are in the eyes of 17th century westerners, do their 'votes' count too?".
Of course, like any work of philosophy, it presupposes some pretty incredible things (like a Godlike intelligence that can be made to care deeply about following the spirit of this framework). But you could write a worse first draft for "what would we want AI to be aligned to, if we could define to our heart's content?"
https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf