“Complete unaligned” is pretty strong term ,too. I don’t see why I shouldn’t infer completely useless from completely unaligned.
Like, if I light candles, sometimes they’ll burn my house down. So are candles useless? No. Because most of the time they don’t burn my house down, but instead provide nice light and mood etc. Especially if I take reasonable precautions like not putting candles on my bed.
I don’t see where you are going with this. I didnt deny that partially useful things are also partially useless, or vice versa. “Partially useful” may well be the default meaning of “useful”, but I specified “completely”.
“A completely unaligned system would be [completely] useless”
A paperclip maximizer (or human suffering maximizer) is completely unaligned (or worse)
It is possible in principle to safely make some money by appropriate use of a paperclip maximizer (or human suffering maximizer), and therefore such an AI is not completely useless.
Right? If so, which of those three do you disagree with?
OK, you may assume that none of the humans care about paperclips, and all of the humans want human suffering to go down rather than up. This includes the people who programmed the AIs, the people interacting with the AI, and human bystanders. Now can you answer the question?
(Meta-note: I think the contents of the above paragraph were very obvious from context—so much so that I’m starting to get a feeling that you’re not engaging in this discussion out of a good-faith desire to figure out why we’re disagreeing.)
“Complete unaligned” is pretty strong term ,too. I don’t see why I shouldn’t infer completely useless from completely unaligned.
I don’t see where you are going with this. I didnt deny that partially useful things are also partially useless, or vice versa. “Partially useful” may well be the default meaning of “useful”, but I specified “completely”.
“If DeepMind unintentionally made a superintelligent paperclip maximizer AI, then we should call this AI ‘completely misaligned’”: Agree or disagree?
If you disagree, what if it’s a human suffering maximizer AI instead of a paperclip maximizer AI?
Negatively aligned, basically evil, what the paperclipper argument is about providing an alternative to.
You can’t believe all three of:
“A completely unaligned system would be [completely] useless”
A paperclip maximizer (or human suffering maximizer) is completely unaligned (or worse)
It is possible in principle to safely make some money by appropriate use of a paperclip maximizer (or human suffering maximizer), and therefore such an AI is not completely useless.
Right? If so, which of those three do you disagree with?
Alignment is a two place predicate. If you’re into paperdclips, a paperclipper is aligned with you
OK, you may assume that none of the humans care about paperclips, and all of the humans want human suffering to go down rather than up. This includes the people who programmed the AIs, the people interacting with the AI, and human bystanders. Now can you answer the question?
(Meta-note: I think the contents of the above paragraph were very obvious from context—so much so that I’m starting to get a feeling that you’re not engaging in this discussion out of a good-faith desire to figure out why we’re disagreeing.)