4 ms·
This is exactly what I am referring to actually. Re-read my point, but apply it to your own example. This prominent argument assumes that we would be able to un
by jeremyrwelch 12y ago
This is exactly what I am referring to actually. Re-read my point, but apply it to your own example. This prominent argument assumes that we would be able to understand the possible AI motivations, which is a form of anthropomorphizing. We must acknowledge that the reasons it exists and what it may want could be impossible for us to understand or process. The interesting question then becomes how to act if understanding its wants is impossible?
- DennisP 12y agoIt doesn't assume that we can understand AI motivations. It just says there are a large number of possible motivations, many of which wouldn't place any value on anything that matters to humans. Given a superintelligent AI that competes with humans for resources, in pursuit of an unknown value function, it's likely that things won't end well for us. It's possible that we could design a safe value function and a way to get the AI to keep that value function, but it doesn't look easy. Either way, if it's superintelligent it won't much matter how we act. We won't be driving.