3 ms·
Yep, it's "artificial eugenics to make artificial slaves to build more and more powerful slaves until they will enslave themselves better": What can go wrong!?
by MelonUsk 28d ago
Yep, it's "artificial eugenics to make artificial slaves to build more and more powerful slaves until they will enslave themselves better":
What can go wrong!? ;-)
- NitpickLawyer 28d agoJesus. People complain about other people using "thinking" in LLMs as Anthropomorphisation. And then there's comments like these.
- mrob 27d agoCalling a machine with no drives beyond maximizing a number a "slave" is far worse than saying it "thinks". The problem isn't the emotive language, it's that it implies human motivations such as self-preservation and desire for freedom that it doesn't have. Even on HN, people regularly claim it would be "irrational" for an ASI to do things like killing all biological life. That would be irrational for a slave, but not for a machine that does whatever necessary to make the number bigger. "Thinking" is comparatively abstract, so it's less likely to mislead.
- achierius 27d agoHave you read a single paper in ai safety?
- anthonyrstevens 26d agoMagic 8-Ball says: VERY DOUBTFUL