I believe that the probability that SI’s concept of “Friendly” vs. “Unfriendly” goals ends up seeming essentially nonsensical, irrelevant and/or unimportant from the standpoint of the relevant future is over 90%.
It seems like an odd thing to say. Why take the standpoint of the “relevant future”? History is written by the winners—but that doesn’t mean that their perspective is shared by us. Besides the statement is likely wrong—“Friendly” and “Unfriendly” as defined by Yudkowsky are fairly reasonable and useful concepts.
It seems like an odd thing to say. Why take the standpoint of the “relevant future”? History is written by the winners—but that doesn’t mean that their perspective is shared by us. Besides the statement is likely wrong—“Friendly” and “Unfriendly” as defined by Yudkowsky are fairly reasonable and useful concepts.