2 ms·

Would you care to share any links? Specifically any talk of an AI-God "judging". If your entire perception is based on what you think you know about the Roko in

by Jach 4mo ago

Would you care to share any links? Specifically any talk of an AI-God "judging". If your entire perception is based on what you think you know about the Roko incident, may I suggest that you are ill-informed about it? It wasn't something the "LW crowd" endorsed or believed. Looks like I left some links to help someone else become informed several years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18982933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18982933

stared 4mo ago
For starter: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/paperclip-maximizer-1 https://www.lesswrong.com/w/paperclip-maximizer-1
- Jach 4mo ago
  I can see how talk of a paperclip maximizer, or any sort of AGI that can actually deliver on e.g. Drexler's nanotech or otherwise act in very powerful ways like, to quote, "colonizing the galaxies", pattern-matches to something roughly omnipotent by most of our standards. I can see how it roughly pattern-matches to something like "immortal", but this seems like the least of feats, much of our complex machinery with maintenance is effectively immortal already. Overall I don't see how this connects to what you originally wrote: "There is a common narrative bias to look at AGI as the Abrahamic God, if not explicitly, then just by saying that it is omniscient, omnipotent, immortal - and will judge us for our deeds." It is not omniscient, it only knows enough to develop the tech to enable paperclip maximization. It is not judging, either: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else." I should also note that the paperclip maximizer is not something the LW crowd believes should exist. Its primary function as an idea is to illustrate the orthogonality thesis: that goals and intelligence aren't dependent on each other. Its secondary function is to illustrate instrumental convergence.

by Jach 4mo ago

stared 4mo ago

For starter: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/paperclip-maximizer-1 https://www.lesswrong.com/w/paperclip-maximizer-1

Jach 4mo ago
I can see how talk of a paperclip maximizer, or any sort of AGI that can actually deliver on e.g. Drexler's nanotech or otherwise act in very powerful ways like, to quote, "colonizing the galaxies", pattern-matches to something roughly omnipotent by most of our standards. I can see how it roughly pattern-matches to something like "immortal", but this seems like the least of feats, much of our complex machinery with maintenance is effectively immortal already. Overall I don't see how this connects to what you originally wrote: "There is a common narrative bias to look at AGI as the Abrahamic God, if not explicitly, then just by saying that it is omniscient, omnipotent, immortal - and will judge us for our deeds." It is not omniscient, it only knows enough to develop the tech to enable paperclip maximization. It is not judging, either: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else." I should also note that the paperclip maximizer is not something the LW crowd believes should exist. Its primary function as an idea is to illustrate the orthogonality thesis: that goals and intelligence aren't dependent on each other. Its secondary function is to illustrate instrumental convergence.