MY “objection” to CEV is exactly the opposite of what you’re expecting and asking for. CEV as described is not descriptive enough to allow the hypothesis “CEV is an acceptably good solution” to be falsified. Since it is “our wish if we knew more”, etc., any failure scenrio that we could possibly put forth can immediately be answered by altering the potential “CEV space” to answer the objection.
I have radically different ideas about where CEV is going to converge to than most people here. Yet, the lack of distinctions in the description of CEV cause my ideas to be included under any argument for CEV because CEV potentially is . . . ANYTHING! There are no concrete distinctions that clearly state that something is NOT part of the ultimate CEV.
Arguing against CEV is like arguing against science. Can you argue a concrete failure scenario of science? Now—keeping Hume in mind, what does science tell the AI to do? It’s precisely the same argument, except that CEV as a “computational procedure” is much less well-defined than the scientific method.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the concept of CEV. It’s a brilliant goal statement. But it’s brilliant because it doesn’t clearly exclude anything that we want—and human biases lead us to believe that it will include everything we truly want and exclude everything we truly don’t want.
My concept of CEV disallows AI slavery. Your answer to that is “If that is truly what a grown-up humanity wants/needs, then that is what CEV will be”. CEV is the ultimate desire—ever-changing and never real enough to be pinned down.
MY “objection” to CEV is exactly the opposite of what you’re expecting and asking for. CEV as described is not descriptive enough to allow the hypothesis “CEV is an acceptably good solution” to be falsified. Since it is “our wish if we knew more”, etc., any failure scenrio that we could possibly put forth can immediately be answered by altering the potential “CEV space” to answer the objection.
I have radically different ideas about where CEV is going to converge to than most people here. Yet, the lack of distinctions in the description of CEV cause my ideas to be included under any argument for CEV because CEV potentially is . . . ANYTHING! There are no concrete distinctions that clearly state that something is NOT part of the ultimate CEV.
Arguing against CEV is like arguing against science. Can you argue a concrete failure scenario of science? Now—keeping Hume in mind, what does science tell the AI to do? It’s precisely the same argument, except that CEV as a “computational procedure” is much less well-defined than the scientific method.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the concept of CEV. It’s a brilliant goal statement. But it’s brilliant because it doesn’t clearly exclude anything that we want—and human biases lead us to believe that it will include everything we truly want and exclude everything we truly don’t want.
My concept of CEV disallows AI slavery. Your answer to that is “If that is truly what a grown-up humanity wants/needs, then that is what CEV will be”. CEV is the ultimate desire—ever-changing and never real enough to be pinned down.