I agree it’s still risky, but with the safety features I put in (having a small limit on the phrase length, outputting the top 100,000 (considered individually) in random order instead of just the top 1, review/discussion by a team, and we can also mix together the top 10,000 insights from each of 10 uploads for additional safety) it seems no worse than just having humans try to solve the problem by thinking about it, since we could also come up with self-mindhacks while thinking.
(Do you agree that the FAI problem has to be solved sooner or later? I think you didn’t respond to the last argument I made on that.)
I agree it’s still risky, but with the safety features I put in (having a small limit on the phrase length, outputting the top 100,000 (considered individually) in random order instead of just the top 1, review/discussion by a team, and we can also mix together the top 10,000 insights from each of 10 uploads for additional safety) it seems no worse than just having humans try to solve the problem by thinking about it, since we could also come up with self-mindhacks while thinking.
(Do you agree that the FAI problem has to be solved sooner or later? I think you didn’t respond to the last argument I made on that.)
...And right now, thinking about possible replies to your comment, I finally switched to agreeing with that. Thanks.
Oh hell. This changes a lot. I need to think.
This is a most excellent update. I look forward to hearing what comes out of this thinking.