3 ms·

"dangerous"? Edit: I personally know a good amount of people for that is a life goal.

• justincredible 7y ago
  Clearly, you haven't watched Mazes and Monsters.
• xamuel 7y ago
  Depends on your definition of dangerous. Dangerous in the same sense that a button you could press to directly stimulate your brain's pleasure centers would be dangerous, because you'd probably end up pressing it to the exclusion of everything else (personal hygiene, family, eating...)
  • chongli 7y ago
    This is called the wireheading problem [1]. It was solved (for AI) by Stuart Russell in his new book Human Compatible [2]. [1] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Wireheading https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Wireheading [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/30/book-review-human-compatible/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/30/book-review-human-comp...
    • xamuel 7y ago
      >It was solved (for AI) by Stuart Russell in his new book Human Compatible Correction: it was downplayed by Stuart Russell. Stuart took simplistic strawman examples and made them look silly by assuming perfectly calibrated common sense in the hypothetical AGI. (Based on skimming the link you posted; I haven't read Stuart's book.)
      • chongli 7y ago
        You should read instead of skim. Stuart Russell specifically rejects the idea of “perfectly calibrated common sense” in AI. He says AI should not interpret any command literally, but instead take a Bayesian approach. This is much closer to how humans respond to one another’s demands.
        • naniwaduni 7y ago
          Congratulations, you've reduced a hard problem to a harder problem!
  • c22 7y ago
    If you have a superhuman AGI willing to do what you ask of it, just make sure you ask it to take care of that other stuff too.