5 ms·
No malice is necessary. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer "The AI does not hate you, nor
by emiliobumachar 10y ago
No malice is necessary.
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
- fratlas 10y agoI believe this is the most likely scenario: lethal apathy. I mean, how could a turing machine have emotions without chemicals?
- drabiega 10y agoEmotions are a heuristic. Any general AI powerful enough to be useful is going to have to be full of similar heuristics if it's going to get anything done. The presence of chemicals is irrelevant.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maroonblazer 10y agoIn what way are emotions a dependency on getting anything done? The AI could be like the high-functioning sociopath who doesn't actually experience the subjective feeling of emotion but has learned all the physical cues that convey a given emotion. An AI would execute them flawlessly.
- adrianN 10y agoWhat have emotions to do with this? And what have chemicals to do with emotions?
- wapapaloobop 10y agoThe idea that I'll use human bodies if I need a bunch of atoms makes as much sense as the premise of The Matrix i.e. harvesting humans for energy production.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoI don't think the line is meant to be taken literally. Consider the myriad of environmental factors humans need to remain alive. Any of those factors, e.g. the atmosphere's current makeup, could prove uninteresting to an AI.
- charlesdenault 10y agoHumans need a bunch of atoms (organic molecules) to survive, and we source that from other living organisms. That parallel isn't too far off.
- wapapaloobop 10y agoHumans need a bunch of atoms (stone, minerals) to survive, and we source those from quarries. This parallel is closer.
- gruturo 10y agoI read that the first draft was using a much more reasonable concept - the Matrix needed our brains as CPUs to run itself. No idea if it's true, but certainly a lot less implausible than what came out in the movie.
- qbrass 10y agoThe power source thing is an instance of unreliable narration. Their account of what happened is pieced together and passed around like the mythology and religion that underscores the movie.
- fulafel 10y agoHumans use other mammals for all kinds of stuff and AI will be seeded with our knowledge. Humans are plentiful: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
- wapapaloobop 10y agoAny person (biological or artificial) who is capable of mass murder is unlikely to balk at slave owning. If he really wanted human-sized parcels of matter he'd be better off putting people to work in mines. A human can collect many times his own mass per day.
- vkou 10y agoWe already live in this world. Capitalism is by design, a paperclip maximizer[1]. Whether or not this means we live in a hellish dystopia is in the eye of the beholder. [1] https://thoughtinfection.com/2014/04/19/capitalism-is-a-paperclip-maximizer/ https://thoughtinfection.com/2014/04/19/capitalism-is-a-pape...
- Eliezer 10y agoNice derail! But the fact that there isn't yet a 400-lightyear expanding hole in the Milky Way suggests that corporations are not, in fact, as dangerous as unaligned machine superintelligences are being alleged to be.
- vkou 10y agoThe fact that there isn't yet a 400-lightyear expanding hole in the Milky Way suggests that corporations have not yet figured out how to be as dangerous as science-fiction mechanical superintelligences are alleged to be in their quest to maximize paperclips. If we don't think that AI can be safely controlled, why do we think that corporations can be? Likewise, if we think that they can, why not the converse? Which fail-safes are effective for one, but not the other?
- conceit 10y ago> why not the converse In that regard, the term superhuman-AI is used.
- conceit 10y agoCapitalism is rather a human worth maximizer. It's not a money maximizer.