4 ms·
As a species, we need to commit to the belief that a powerful enough AI can prevent/avoid/vanquish any and all zero-sum games between any two entities. Otherwis
by z5h 3y ago
As a species, we need to commit to the belief that a powerful enough AI can prevent/avoid/vanquish any and all zero-sum games between any two entities. Otherwise we commit to adversarial relationships, and plan to use and develop the most powerful technology against each other.
- tomrod 3y agoPareto improvements don't always exist.
- z5h 3y agoI’m suggesting we (AI) can find alternative and preferable “games”.
- tomrod 3y agoDelegating the structure of engagement to a pattern matcher doesn't change fundamentals. Consider Arrow's Impossibility Theorem: can't have all the nice properties of a social choice function without a dictator. So your AI needs to have higher level definitions in its objective to achieve some allocative efficiency. Examples abound, common ones are utilitarianism (don't use this one, this results in bad outcomes) and egalitarianism. Fortunately, we can choose this with both eyes open. The field that considers this type of research is Mechanism Design, an inverse to Game Theory where you design for a desired outcome through incentives. Would it be correct to suggest your suggestion to delegate to AI the design of games means you trust people are ineffectual at identifying when certain game types, such as zero sum games, are all that are possible?
- salawat 3y agoIf just believing made things happen, w'd have no climate crisis, overpopulation wouldn't be a thing to worry about, and we wouldn't be staring down half the issue we are with trying to bring short-term profit at the expense of long term stability to heel.
- nradov 3y agoYou have not provided any evidence for such a claim. I prefer to act based on facts or at least probabilities, not belief.