From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 09:40:04 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Eliezer wrote
> > > - to my way of thinking, this violates Friendliness.
> >
> > Why in the world? I would deeply hope that it would be so
> > considerate! *Everyone* would be better off uploaded
It'd be friendly but not Friendly. Uploading people without their consent
as an alternative to exterminating them is friendly, but not Friendly.
Taking 99% of the universe for yourself and allocating the remaining 1% to
humans who live inside you and whom you help on request is friendly, but not
Friendly.
> Thanks for again demonstrating that consensus on Friendliness metric does
> not exist (apparently, it needs reminding). Not to mention that singletons
> are unphysical, but that will have to wait for another post.
Heh. I never claimed there was a consensus on Friendliness content. *I*
just need to get the *structure* right. If I get the content right, it's
helpful, but not necessary. The *AI* is the one who has to get the content
right. As for a consensus on Friendliness structure, I'd be happy if people
even *saw* Friendliness structure, instead of arguing over Friendliness
content, which argument of course implies that they think they know which
kind of arguments are likely to persuade other humans. Eugen, for example,
quite correctly estimates that I and the rest of the audience are likely to
regard a lack of consensus as significant... so I'm glad to see we all have
consensus on that particular moral sequitur.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:38 MST