To say that special circumstances exist, and that my research was thorough would be an unpersuasive appeal to my own authority.
I assert that this is closer to a professional engineer noticing a new, non-obvious application of a technology that he is well acquainted with. This happens daily and in theory is required in order to receive a patent.
This idea prompted the desire for a ‘reverse patent’, where someone who generates a strictly harmful idea is somehow economically incentivized to avoid disclosure. Unfortunately, disclosure to a ‘reverse patent office’ would still be disclosure, and therefore harmful.
If the downvotes and comments are any indication, the community that is concerned with the idea of an ‘artificial’ intelligence coming up with some unanticipated engineering breakthrough that harms humanity, then accidentally or intentionally turning it loose is pretty hostile to a ‘natural’ intelligence asserting that it has done the same, looking for a way other than altruism to motivate others in the same position to keep quiet.
You got downvotes because you made a blackmail thread against the community. Even if it’s no credible threat, treating it as an hostile act and downvoting it is still right for game theoretic reasons.
So in your read of the downvotes, the most common interpretation of the OP was ‘you community members should pay me, an outsider, to be virtuous, or else’ rather than ‘hi fellow rationalists, does anyone know of resources that would allow me to profit from the practice of our shared values’?
To say that special circumstances exist, and that my research was thorough would be an unpersuasive appeal to my own authority.
I assert that this is closer to a professional engineer noticing a new, non-obvious application of a technology that he is well acquainted with. This happens daily and in theory is required in order to receive a patent.
This idea prompted the desire for a ‘reverse patent’, where someone who generates a strictly harmful idea is somehow economically incentivized to avoid disclosure. Unfortunately, disclosure to a ‘reverse patent office’ would still be disclosure, and therefore harmful.
If the downvotes and comments are any indication, the community that is concerned with the idea of an ‘artificial’ intelligence coming up with some unanticipated engineering breakthrough that harms humanity, then accidentally or intentionally turning it loose is pretty hostile to a ‘natural’ intelligence asserting that it has done the same, looking for a way other than altruism to motivate others in the same position to keep quiet.
You got downvotes because you made a blackmail thread against the community. Even if it’s no credible threat, treating it as an hostile act and downvoting it is still right for game theoretic reasons.
So in your read of the downvotes, the most common interpretation of the OP was ‘you community members should pay me, an outsider, to be virtuous, or else’ rather than ‘hi fellow rationalists, does anyone know of resources that would allow me to profit from the practice of our shared values’?