4 ms·

For goodness sake the paperclip maker is an example. The point is that unless you specify the goals very carefully, you may get what you asked for, not what you

For goodness sake the paperclip maker is an example. The point is that unless you specify the goals very carefully, you may get what you asked for, not what you wanted.

mariusz79 12y ago
no shi* that it's an example, but it's a stupid one. If you have to specify the goals very carefully then the AI it's not super intelligent by definition. It means that not only it does not understand what it's asked for, but does not understand our world. I can assume that none of us here can be qualified as super intelligent, yet we know what to do when asked to start producing paper clips, or at least we know where to start.
- JamesArgo 12y ago
  The AI is modelled as an agent with goals. If you want to argue that "intelligence" means "has a terminal goal exactly matching the values of humanity," then I suppose a paper-clip maximizer is not intelligent, but that's a non-standard definition of intelligence. The more common definitions for intelligence go something like this: The capacity of an agent to select and implement actions that bring about its goals. Here the "goals" could be anything. That is, any goal could be combined with any level of capability so long as the agent is intelligent enough to comprehend its goal. >If you have to specify the goals very carefully then the AI it's not super intelligent by definition. When you're designing the agent, you have to select something like a goal, whether it's a fitness function or the maximization of a reward signal. Evolution certainly selected our goals. Love, self-expression, sex, fun, intellectual stimulation, the beauty of social interaction – these all reflect features of our ancestral environment. It’s a little naive to think there is a One True Morality that all agents stumble upon. It’s even sillier to think it happens to reflect our values The intelligent part of the paperclip maximizer selects actions and weights them in the context of its utility function, to maximize paperclips. Any thought of changing its goals would be judged of negative utility, as that would lead to less paperclips.
sitkack 12y ago
By analogy the AI is a leprechaun or a genie that will give you what you asked for but in a way that could do you harm.

For goodness sake the paperclip maker is an example. The point is that unless you specify the goals very carefully, you may get what you asked for, not what you wanted.

mariusz79 12y ago

no shi* that it's an example, but it's a stupid one. If you have to specify the goals very carefully then the AI it's not super intelligent by definition. It means that not only it does not understand what it's asked for, but does not understand our world. I can assume that none of us here can be qualified as super intelligent, yet we know what to do when asked to start producing paper clips, or at least we know where to start.

JamesArgo 12y ago
The AI is modelled as an agent with goals. If you want to argue that "intelligence" means "has a terminal goal exactly matching the values of humanity," then I suppose a paper-clip maximizer is not intelligent, but that's a non-standard definition of intelligence. The more common definitions for intelligence go something like this: The capacity of an agent to select and implement actions that bring about its goals. Here the "goals" could be anything. That is, any goal could be combined with any level of capability so long as the agent is intelligent enough to comprehend its goal. >If you have to specify the goals very carefully then the AI it's not super intelligent by definition. When you're designing the agent, you have to select something like a goal, whether it's a fitness function or the maximization of a reward signal. Evolution certainly selected our goals. Love, self-expression, sex, fun, intellectual stimulation, the beauty of social interaction – these all reflect features of our ancestral environment. It’s a little naive to think there is a One True Morality that all agents stumble upon. It’s even sillier to think it happens to reflect our values The intelligent part of the paperclip maximizer selects actions and weights them in the context of its utility function, to maximize paperclips. Any thought of changing its goals would be judged of negative utility, as that would lead to less paperclips.

sitkack 12y ago

By analogy the AI is a leprechaun or a genie that will give you what you asked for but in a way that could do you harm.