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?
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?