Clippys value as an enforcer only applies to humans, if humans reached the point they could offer Clippy half a solar mass of paper clips i don’t think we would still be worrying about this issue.
I understand your premise, i was just pointing out the flaw in your example as a way to disagree with it.
Clippy’s would be incorruptible if a sufficient amount of paperclips were held in escrow, the logistics are the only problem.
The issue is that “sufficient amount” is a moving target. If it’s as much as the current world government could credibly offer, what if somebody has a plan to overthrow said government which hinges on a few fraudulent Clippy-sanctioned oaths?
I notice i am confused.
I think that you mean that Clippy could be easily corrupted based on situational factors, i was just trying to point out that his utility function is easier to understand then the vast majority of “enforcers” so with correct precautions we would be able to rely on Clippy. Are you saying that there’s no way to logistically turn a simple utility function into a safe enforcer with proper preparation?
I would enjoy further elaboration of your statement :3
I’m saying that dropping something simple, reliable, and well-understood, but not mathematically infallible (like natural law), into an economic system containing billions of humans-as-we-know-them is like dropping wounded livestock into shark-infested waters. Every attempt at corruption successfully repelled makes people more confident in it, and therefore increases the potential rewards for a successful attempt; the existence of irrationally overconfident people means that attempts will continue, and greater rewards mean those attempts will be backed by commensurately greater resources.
Clippys value as an enforcer only applies to humans, if humans reached the point they could offer Clippy half a solar mass of paper clips i don’t think we would still be worrying about this issue.
Clippy’s value as an enforcer is based on a premise of incorruptibility, which is deeply flawed.
I understand your premise, i was just pointing out the flaw in your example as a way to disagree with it. Clippy’s would be incorruptible if a sufficient amount of paperclips were held in escrow, the logistics are the only problem.
The issue is that “sufficient amount” is a moving target. If it’s as much as the current world government could credibly offer, what if somebody has a plan to overthrow said government which hinges on a few fraudulent Clippy-sanctioned oaths?
I notice i am confused. I think that you mean that Clippy could be easily corrupted based on situational factors, i was just trying to point out that his utility function is easier to understand then the vast majority of “enforcers” so with correct precautions we would be able to rely on Clippy. Are you saying that there’s no way to logistically turn a simple utility function into a safe enforcer with proper preparation? I would enjoy further elaboration of your statement :3
I’m saying that dropping something simple, reliable, and well-understood, but not mathematically infallible (like natural law), into an economic system containing billions of humans-as-we-know-them is like dropping wounded livestock into shark-infested waters. Every attempt at corruption successfully repelled makes people more confident in it, and therefore increases the potential rewards for a successful attempt; the existence of irrationally overconfident people means that attempts will continue, and greater rewards mean those attempts will be backed by commensurately greater resources.
I understand now :) Do you think you can say the same thing about the regulators of our current economic system?
I could, but why bother? Others have said it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Thank you for taking the time to change my mind good sir.
You’re quite welcome. Thank you for going along willingly, rather than needing to be dragged!