This is equivalent to the game Westley played with Vizzini. You know, if Westley didn’t cheat. I like to call it “Sicilian Chess” for that reason, though that’s just me.
andrew sauer
Karma: 392
Trump shot an arrow into the air; it fell to Earth, he knows not where...
Probably one of the best succinct summaries of every damn week that man is president lmao
LOL @ the AI-warped book in that guy’s hands
Now you can!
Gwern seems to think this would be used as a way to get rid of corrupt oligarchs, but… Wouldn’t this just immediately be co-opted by those oligarchs to solidify their power by legally paying for the assassinations of their opponents? Markets aren’t democratic, because a small percentage of the people have most of the money.
To be fair, my position is less described by that Quirrell quote and more by Harry’s quote when he’s talking to Hermione about moral peer pressure:
“The way people are built, Hermione, the way people are built to feel inside, is that they hurt when they see their friends hurting. Someone inside their circle of concern, a member of their own tribe. That feeling has an off-switch, an off-switch labelled ‘enemy’ or ‘foreigner’ or sometimes just ‘stranger’. That’s how people are, if they don’t learn otherwise.”
Unlike Quirrell I give people the credit for actually caring, rather than pretending to care, about people. I just don’t think that extends to very many people, for most people.
Fun fact for those reading this in the far future, when Eliezer said “effective altruist” in this piece, he most likely was using the literal meaning, not referring to the EA movement, as that name hadn’t been coined yet.
Wildbow (the author of Worm) is currently writing a story with a quite similar premise
In fact I think it’s safe to say that we’d collectively allocate much more than 1/millionth of our resources towards protecting the preferences of whatever weak agents happen to exist in the world (obviously the cows get only a small fraction of that).
Sure, but extrapolating this to unaligned AI is NOT an encouraging sign. We may allocate greater than 1/million of our resources to animal rights, but we allocate a whole lot more than that to goals which diametrically go against the preferences of those animals such as eating meat and cheese and eggs; we allocate MUCH more resources to “animal wrongs” than animal rights, so to speak.
So to show an AI will be “nice” to humans at all, it is not enough to suppose that it might have some 1/million “nice to humans” term. It requires showing that that term won’t be outweighed handily by the rest of its utility function.
100%. Social contract gives no consideration to the powerless, and this fact is the source of much of the horrible opinions in the world.
No idea whether I’d really sacrifice all 10 of my fingers to improve the world by that much, especially if we add the stipulation that I can’t use any of the $10,000,000,000,000 to pay someone to do all of the things I use my fingers for( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). For me I am quite well divided on it, and it is an example of a pretty clean, crisp distinction between selfish and selfless values. If I kept my fingers, I would feel guilty, because I would be giving up the altruism I value a lot (not just because people tell me to), and the emotion that would result from that loss of value would be guilt, even though I self-consistenly value my fingers more. Conversely, if I did give up my fingers for the $10,000,000,000,000, I would feel terrible for different reasons( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°), even though I valued the altruism more.
Of course, given this decision I would not keep all of my fingers in any case, as long as I could choose which ones to lose. $100,000,000 is well worth the five fingers on my right (nondominant) hand. My life would be better purely selfishly, given that I would never have to work again, and could still write, type, and ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).
So, travelling 1Tm with the railway you have a 63% chance of dying according to the math in the post
Furthermore, the tries must be independent of each other, otherwise the reasoning breaks down completely. If I draw cards from a deck, each one has (a priori) 1⁄52 chance of being the ace of spades, yet if I draw all 52 I will draw the ace of spades 100% of the time. This is because successive failures increase the posterior probability of drawing a success.
This but unironically.
Another important one: Height/Altitude is authority. Your boss is “above” you, the king, president or CEO is “at the top”, you “climb the corporate ladder”
For a significant fee, of course
Yes to both, easy, but that’s because I can afford to risk $100. A lot of people can’t nowadays. “plus rejecting the first bet even if your total wealth was somewhat different” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Honestly man, as a lowercase-i incel this failed utopia doesn’t sound very failed to me...
What do you mean?
Keep in mind also, that humans often seem to just want to hurt each other, despite what they claim, and have more motivations and rationalizations for this than you can even count. Religious dogma, notions of “justice”, spitefulness, envy, hatred of any number of different human traits, deterrence, revenge, sadism, curiosity, reinforcement of hierarchy, preservation of traditions, ritual, “suffering adds meaning to life”, sexual desire, and more and more that I haven’t even mentioned. Sometimes it seems half of human philosophy is just devoted to finding ever more rationalizations to cause suffering, or to avoid caring about the suffering of others.
AI would likely not have all this endless baggage causing it to be cruel. Causing human suffering is not an instrumentally convergent goal. So, most AIs will not have it as a persistent instrumental or terminal goal. Not unless some humans manage to “align” it. Most humans DO have causing or upholding some manner of suffering as a persistent instrumental or terminal goal.