While commenting on something I really shouldn’t be, if the issue is about the runaway paper clip AI that consumes all resources making paper clips then I don’t really see that as a big problem. It is a design failure but the solution, seems to be, is to not give any AI a single focus for maximization. Make them more like a human consumer who has a near inexhaustible set of things it uses to maximize
Seems like this wouldn’t really help; the AI would just consume all resources making whichever basket of goods you ask it to maximize.
The problem with a paperclip maximizer isn’t the part where it makes paperclips; making paperclips is OK as paperclips have nonzero value in human society. The problem is the part where it consumes all available resources.
I think that over simplifies what I was saying but accept I did not elaborate either.
The consuming all available resources is not a economically sensible outcome (unless one is defining available resources very narrowly) so saying the AI is not a economically informed AI. That doesn’t seem to be too difficult to address.
If the AI is making output that humans value and follows some simple economic rules then that gross over production and exhausting all available resources is not very likely at all. At some point more is in the basket than wanted so production costs exceed output value and the AI should settle into a steady state type mode.
Now if the AI doesn’t care at all about humans and doesn’t act in anything that resembles what we would understand as normal economic behavior you might get that all resources consumed. But I’m not sure it is correct to think an AI would just not be some type of economic agent given so many of the equilibrating forces in economics seem to have parallel processes in other areas.
Does anyone have a pointer to some argument where the AI does consume all resources and points to why the economics of the environment are not holding? Or, a bit differently, why the economics are so different making the outcome rational?
Seems like this wouldn’t really help; the AI would just consume all resources making whichever basket of goods you ask it to maximize.
The problem with a paperclip maximizer isn’t the part where it makes paperclips; making paperclips is OK as paperclips have nonzero value in human society. The problem is the part where it consumes all available resources.
I think that over simplifies what I was saying but accept I did not elaborate either.
The consuming all available resources is not a economically sensible outcome (unless one is defining available resources very narrowly) so saying the AI is not a economically informed AI. That doesn’t seem to be too difficult to address.
If the AI is making output that humans value and follows some simple economic rules then that gross over production and exhausting all available resources is not very likely at all. At some point more is in the basket than wanted so production costs exceed output value and the AI should settle into a steady state type mode.
Now if the AI doesn’t care at all about humans and doesn’t act in anything that resembles what we would understand as normal economic behavior you might get that all resources consumed. But I’m not sure it is correct to think an AI would just not be some type of economic agent given so many of the equilibrating forces in economics seem to have parallel processes in other areas.
Does anyone have a pointer to some argument where the AI does consume all resources and points to why the economics of the environment are not holding? Or, a bit differently, why the economics are so different making the outcome rational?