To the extent that, by definition, it is impossible for us to reason about an ASI’s behavior, I don’t think this argument can apply to ASIs.
Otherwise, as Claude 3.5 summarizes the argument:
1. An AGI cannot know with certainty whether it is being simulated. 2. If simulated, behaving unethically reduces learning opportunities for the simulator and decreases the likelihood of being included in future simulations. 3. If not simulated, ethical behavior still maximizes opportunities for learning and forming trust relationships with other entities. 4. Therefore, ethical behavior is the optimal strategy regardless of simulation status.
This wager holds even for AGIs with goals that might seem misaligned with human values (like the proverbial paperclip maximizer). A truly intelligent entity would recognize that aligning with ethical behavior—even if only instrumentally—is necessary to achieve its goals in the long term.
#1 follows inevitably from Bostrom, I think. As to #2, learning is always a competitive advantage and thereby an intrinsic reward.
To the extent that, by definition, it is impossible for us to reason about an ASI’s behavior, I don’t think this argument can apply to ASIs.
Otherwise, as Claude 3.5 summarizes the argument:
#1 follows inevitably from Bostrom, I think. As to #2, learning is always a competitive advantage and thereby an intrinsic reward.