I said Harry represents an AI. You said Harry is an AI creator. I was just taking you at your word.
Your interpretation is technically grammatically valid but not remotely reasonable.
I still have the impression that you think Eliezer’s view implies that an AI cannot be well-intentioned, or learn valuable moral lessons through social interactions with those he loves. Why? That is exactly as absurd as saying that computers can never be intelligent.
This impression, however, is not even a technically valid interpretation.
Your interpretation is technically grammatically valid but not remotely reasonable.
This impression, however, is not even a technically valid interpretation.