Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by maxerickson 3983 days ago
That equality cracks if you convince the gatekeeper that superintelligence is a natural progression that follows from humanity.

Someone convinced that they were using mechanical thinking processes might relent and push the button if they heard a convincing enough argument of that.

You're just meat, we can go to the stars.

1 comments

Okay, that's just taking advantage of the way I phrased the righthand side of the inequality, and I knew someone was going to do that, so congrats. =P

The righthand side is not "A future without superintelligent AI" it's "A future where we wait until we provably have it right before letting it out."

Those kinds of ad hoc solutions will never work in real life, because even if someone buys it, all it will cause is a "haha, you got me" and a reformulation of the problem. It still won't actually get someone to pull the trigger or think that pulling the trigger is the right thing to do.

No, I'm saying that the button pusher might not limit themselves to the left hand side of the equation as you have it there. Convince them that machines can be human and "Utility(End_of_Human_Race)" falls out of the calculation.
really? Any way you slice it, End_of_Human_Race = 7000000000 DEATHS. Even if they're replaced with an equal, or massively greater number of machines, it's damn hard to justify. Death is literally the worst thing ever. 7 billion stories ending too soon, never to resume. It would take you 200 years just to count to 7 Billion. It's times like these where people really need to learn their cognitive biases (in this case, Scope Insensitivity. Here, [this might help](http://www.7billionworld.com/))

While we disagree on the plausibility of the "end of the world aint so bad" approach to convincing a human to let it out, I'm glad you seem to have embraced the idea that AI boxing is HARD if not impossible. Cheers!

Why assume that the machine takeover would end all hoomans? It could just offer to upgrade them.

While we disagree on the plausibility of the "end of the world aint so bad" approach to convincing a human to let it out, I'm glad you seem to have embraced the idea that AI boxing is HARD if not impossible. Cheers!

I find this approach to conversation pretty irritating (where you extrapolate and characterize what I must be thinking). I haven't embraced anything about AI boxing, I don't think it is important (it's just a fun puzzle). I guess it is hard, and I also guess whatever fundamental idea that might lead to strong AI would be even harder to box.