3 ms·
You said: just replace those with another instance of your ai, as well as the boss. I interpreted your statement as meaning to replace even the boss with AI,
by chongli 4y ago
You said:
just replace those with another instance of your ai, as well as the boss.
I interpreted your statement as meaning to replace even the boss with AI, i.e. a fully-autonomous AI answerable to no one. That is just a paperclip-maximizer since it is no longer under human control.
Perhaps you never meant for the boss to be replaced, in that case you may ignore my paperclip-maximizer statement.
- Version467 4y agoIt is what I meant, I just don't see what the paperclip-maximiser has to do with it. As far as I understand it the primary idea behind that particular thought experiment is how a misaligned ai leads to agi ruin, even for simple goals. The scenario we talk about doesn't even contain misaligned ai. It contains friendly ai (the best case scenario), which still drops all current human economic value to zero. The contrived scenario has all jobs except for the boss replaced with ai. You propose hiring operators to increase the companies productivity. I say this doesn't make sense. Do you agree until this point? If so, what does the paperclip maximiser have to do with anything? If not, what did I misunderstand?