From: Richard Loosemore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2006 - 12:36:37 MST
Gordon Worley wrote:
> I tried sending this message to the list about two weeks ago, but it
> simply never made it across the Internet. I tried again and it still
> failed. Maybe this time it will work, so long as no one tries to bring
> Tatya into existence again.
> On Nov 20, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Philip Goetz wrote:
>> "It follows that we have no reason to expect any SI we deal with to
>> a huge intrinsic utility to its own survival. Why? Because that's an
>> extremely specific outcome within a very large class of outcomes where
>> SI doesn't shut itself down immediately. There is, in other words, no
>> Bayesian evidence - no likelihood ratio - that says we are probably
>> looking at an SI that attaches a huge intrinsic utility to its own
>> survival; both hypotheses produce the same prediction for observed
>> There doesn't seem to be any reason given for the conclusion. I could
>> just as well say, "We have no reason to expect any animal we deal with
>> to attach utility to its own survival, because that's an extremely
>> specific outcome within a very large class of animals who don't commit
>> suicide immediately."
> But there is evidence that any animal we deal with attaches utility to
> its own survival. Even if we knew nothing about genetics, Darwin, or
> even basic biology, simply observation would give us evidence as to
> this. We can't even observe an SI, though, because none exists, thus we
> must look for other kinds of evidence, and currently we have none (or so
> claims Eliezer; he's the expert, not me; I certainly have none), thus
> the analogy doesn't fit.
> My guess is that you're most unsettled by the fact that Eliezer gave no
> evidence that there is no evidence. But the fact that he's an expert in
> the field and claiming that there is no evidence is evidence of no
> evidence. Bayesian evidence, anyway, which is the only kind that really
For pity's sake, Eliezer, will you once and for all stop sending me the
drivel from this ridiculous mailing list.
I was amused, for a while, to note that you decided to still send me all
the posts on SL4, but now I have had my fill of the kind of sycophantic
garbage typified by the above "But the fact that [Eliezer]'s an expert
in the field and claiming that there is no evidence is evidence of no
I wonder that you can even stand it yourself.
> On Nov 20, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Philip Goetz wrote:
>> This is why I think the larger goals of friendless will be met not by
>> trying to control AIs, but by trying to design them to have those
>> attributes that we value in humans, and in trying to set up the
>> initial conditions so that the ecosystem of AIs will encourage
>> cooperation, or at least something better than winner-takes-all.
> I'm not sure anyone serious advocates trying to control an arbitrary
> optimization process (OP*) anymore. Through Eliezer's AI box
> experiments, and the simple realization that humans cannot conceive of
> everything, we know that, although boxing an arbitrary, let alone a
> superintelligent, OP might be an interesting thought experiment in AI
> engineering, it's not something we can rely on to protect us.
> I agree. I think the best strategy anyone has yet developed that I know
> of is to build an OP that will (i) want to become superintelligent, and
> (ii) do so in a way we would want it to if we knew more, thought faster,
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Gordon Worley
> e-mail: email@example.com PGP: 0xBBD3B003
> Web: http://homepage.mac.com/redbird/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT