Re: Collapsarity

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 07:08:50 MST

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> The point is that the banana test still works. *Zero* intervention is
>> not moral. You can always hypothesize changes too huge and too fast
>> for people to cope, in which case I would also currently agree/guess
>> that it is not "help" to change people's environments, much less the
>> people themselves, at speeds that exceed their ability to cope. But
>> just because you can imagine changes huge enough (if adopted
>> instantaneously) to effectively kill people, it does not follow that
>> there's anything wrong with giving a friend a banana. It's just a
>> banana, for crying out loud. So if I ask for a banana and I don't get
>> one, I can guess that there are no friends around.
> Depends on how big the "banana" is. You went on in the post responded
> to to say that suffering of some degree or another is proof enough that
> a Friendly AI is not present. That is a pretty big banana.

What I said is that suffering of the degree present in our world is proof
enough that a Friendly AI is not present. If you wanted to generalize,
perhaps, you could generalize to involuntary suffering, or involuntary
severe simple pointless suffering (a sufficient but not necessary condition).

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT