Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by maxerickson 3983 days ago
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.
1 comments
TylerJay 3983 days ago
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!

link
maxerickson 3981 days ago
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.

link