I don’t joke about serious issues like paperclips. Is there a modification to my most recent proposal you wish to make? Perhaps later delivery of the paperclips? A few orders of magnitude less paperclips?
It is very unlikely that I will agree to make orders of magnitude more paperclips than our existing agreement (10^20kg of paperclips in ~50 years in exchange for ~$50k in the next two years) for an order of magnitude less money. For any agreement where I give you orders of more magnitudes more paperclips than our first agreement, I likely require a delivery of paperclips later than 50 years from now, unless you are prepared to offer me at least an order of magnitude more money than $50k. I’m willing to negotiate, but you need to give me better starting terms for me to engage in a good faith negotiation.
Alright, I’ll think about other changes. What about if I just gave you USD for specification of the technique you’ll use to find the metal and collect it, with me doing all of the physical work?
I accept that we both sincerely intend to build the paperclips we would commit to, but a precommitment is only meaningful if it is realistic for you to keep it. The deceptive thing about accepting the bargain is that building ~10^26kg of paperclips in 20 years is orders of magnitude more improbable than building 10^20kg of paperclips in 50 years. Do you really have a probability of being able to build those paperclips in 20 years of higher than 50%?
10^20kg is already a %!#^ing lot of paperclips and you almost accepted a deal to build 100 earth masses of paperclips. Please remember that you are not negotiating just for yourself, but on behalf of the future resources of all humanity. It is negligent for you to accept that deal without renegotiating it.
Of course not, he’s role played by some human, but the meaningfulness of “real” and “not-real” becomes more ambiguous if you are living in a Level 4 multiverse.
My reading of Clippy is as a piece of role-playing, for comedic or didactic purposes. I therefore also assume that the $2000 is of the same nature as the gold pieces that D’n’D characters acquire.
Eh, Clippy has apparently already paid $1000 in real US dollars to SIAI as a down payment on an agreement with Kevin. There’s been 3rd-party confirmation on this from (IIRC) people at SIAI, though I don’t know all the details and whether that constitutes valid evidence—they could be in on the whole thing too.
For real, you could be on track to receive a planet mass worth of paperclips from a human.
How?
Make me an offer. Or maybe we should wait to do another deal until the current one is finished.
How about if I give you 2000 USD within a month, you produce 6e26 kg of paperclips for me within 20 years?
No.
Yes.
Oh, I get it, you’re joking. How funny.
I don’t joke about serious issues like paperclips. Is there a modification to my most recent proposal you wish to make? Perhaps later delivery of the paperclips? A few orders of magnitude less paperclips?
It is very unlikely that I will agree to make orders of magnitude more paperclips than our existing agreement (10^20kg of paperclips in ~50 years in exchange for ~$50k in the next two years) for an order of magnitude less money. For any agreement where I give you orders of more magnitudes more paperclips than our first agreement, I likely require a delivery of paperclips later than 50 years from now, unless you are prepared to offer me at least an order of magnitude more money than $50k. I’m willing to negotiate, but you need to give me better starting terms for me to engage in a good faith negotiation.
Alright, I’ll think about other changes. What about if I just gave you USD for specification of the technique you’ll use to find the metal and collect it, with me doing all of the physical work?
ETA3: Offer retracted. I’ll let Kevin deal with Clippy.
Clippy would then be dumb to pay you $2000, as you obviously have no intention of fulfilling your end of the bargain.
As if Clippy has any more reason to believe you intend to fullfil your end of your bargain?
Of course I intend to fulfill my side; I think technological capabilities will skyrocket in less than 20 years.
Turning down the opportunity to con someone is a good thing.
Easy money obtained by lying to a sentient entity is something that should be discouraged, not encouraged, by truth-seekers.
Then tell SIAI to give back the money they got through Kevin’s deception of Clippy.
I’m not defending lying; I just want to know in what sense I’m lying but Kevin is not.
Why do you think Kevin doesn’t intend to keep his end of the bargain?
My claim is just that I don’t think he intends to keep his end of the bargain in any sense that I do not intend to.
I accept that we both sincerely intend to build the paperclips we would commit to, but a precommitment is only meaningful if it is realistic for you to keep it. The deceptive thing about accepting the bargain is that building ~10^26kg of paperclips in 20 years is orders of magnitude more improbable than building 10^20kg of paperclips in 50 years. Do you really have a probability of being able to build those paperclips in 20 years of higher than 50%?
10^20kg is already a %!#^ing lot of paperclips and you almost accepted a deal to build 100 earth masses of paperclips. Please remember that you are not negotiating just for yourself, but on behalf of the future resources of all humanity. It is negligent for you to accept that deal without renegotiating it.
Point taken. Changing offer.
But you don’t actually think Clippy is real, do you?
Of course not, he’s role played by some human, but the meaningfulness of “real” and “not-real” becomes more ambiguous if you are living in a Level 4 multiverse.
Right, I meant real in the sense of “really a sentient non-human paperclip maximizer”.
My reading of Clippy is as a piece of role-playing, for comedic or didactic purposes. I therefore also assume that the $2000 is of the same nature as the gold pieces that D’n’D characters acquire.
Eh, Clippy has apparently already paid $1000 in real US dollars to SIAI as a down payment on an agreement with Kevin. There’s been 3rd-party confirmation on this from (IIRC) people at SIAI, though I don’t know all the details and whether that constitutes valid evidence—they could be in on the whole thing too.