From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 03:17:04 MDT
Alden Streeter wrote:
> So what you're saying then is that we may as well at least _try_ to design
> the AI with our concept of Friendliness built-in, on the off-chance that we
> just naturally happened upon the "right" meaning of Friendliness determined
> entirely by our biological evolution; then if at some later time the
> Friendly AI realizes that the idea of Friendliness that we gave it was
> moronic to begin with, it should be free to alter or discard it?
Essentially. Remember, any alternative proposed would also have a causal
history in our universe; if it is chosen for correct reasons, then those
correct reasons must have been apparent to the programmers, ergo, building
an AI with human-frame-of-reference moral reasoning instead, is not a
fatal error under this scenario.
> Or are you saying the Friendly AI must be _absolutely forbidden_ from
> altering it's human-programmed concept of Friendliness in any way that those
> primitive humans might object to, however irrational those objections might
> actually be to its vastly superior intellect?
This is neither moral nor, as far as I can tell, technically possible.
Human-level intelligence is an inadequate control system, both morally,
and also technically, for transhuman powers. Besides which, how exactly
would this "absolutely forbidden" trick work?
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT