Generally, an agent that always assumes the worst unless proven wrong, would have no problem doing all kinds of horrible things, because by the assumption they are still an improvement over what would happen otherwise.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. By looking around, it very soon learns that some things are not maximally horrible, like the chair in the room is not broken (so presumably there is some kind of law constraining Murphy to keep the chair intact at least for now). Why would the agent break the chair then, why would that be better than what would happen otherwise?
Generally, an agent that always assumes the worst unless proven wrong, would have no problem doing all kinds of horrible things, because by the assumption they are still an improvement over what would happen otherwise.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. By looking around, it very soon learns that some things are not maximally horrible, like the chair in the room is not broken (so presumably there is some kind of law constraining Murphy to keep the chair intact at least for now). Why would the agent break the chair then, why would that be better than what would happen otherwise?