Unfortunately, all I can do is imagine a heated contest between two people over which of them is going to do some evil action XYZ that is going to be done regardless. They each want to ensure that they don’t do it, but for some reason it will necessarily be done, so they come to blows over it.
I may, in fact, be constitutionally incapable of successful communication with deontologists.
I’m not following you. Why is evil action XYZ going to be done regardless? Are you imagining that deontologists seek to have other people do their dirty deeds for them?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?
Unfortunately, all I can do is imagine a heated contest between two people over which of them is going to do some evil action XYZ that is going to be done regardless. They each want to ensure that they don’t do it, but for some reason it will necessarily be done, so they come to blows over it.
I may, in fact, be constitutionally incapable of successful communication with deontologists.
I’m not following you. Why is evil action XYZ going to be done regardless? Are you imagining that deontologists seek to have other people do their dirty deeds for them?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?
Well, exactly. It’s a possible situation in the mathematical framework of who-did-what-to-whom you created. I thought of it before I thought of a reason why. For many definitions of what “who-did-what-to-whom” means, a sufficiently clever reason why would be constructed.
Maybe it must be done to prevent bad stuff.
Maybe it’s a fact of the psychology of these two individuals that one of them is going to do it.
Maybe an AI in a box is going to convince one of two people with the power to release it, to release it—this is sort of like the last one?