3 ms·
That's some useful feedback to know as I've considered recommending that book but haven't read it myself as it's redundant to what I've already read, but if Bos
by Jach 12y ago
That's some useful feedback to know as I've considered recommending that book but haven't read it myself as it's redundant to what I've already read, but if Bostrom doesn't seem to explain very well that there's a distinction between intelligence and goals/values, I'll just keep linking to some basic online texts. (Try http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Complexity_of_value http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Complexity_of_value) The paperclip superintelligence will indeed be able to reason more effectively than humans about what's the be all and end all of existing -- the problem is that its conclusion will always be "to make more paperclips", because that's the overarching value it uses to frame all its thoughts on future actions, and its reasoning will be air tight. It will also be capable of explaining to any human wondering why its being torn apart for paperclip conversion that human values are different (they are such and such) and because it does not share those values, it comes to a different conclusion for the meaning of life, and it will also be able to generate great arguments for why its value system is superior. But it probably won't bother to do so...
- thomasfoster96 12y agoIt's probably still worth reading the book if you're interested in a philosophical view of super intelligence, but if you're looking for a detailed look at the philosophical issues concerning artificial general intelligence (which I thought it would be), it's probably not the book for you.