From: Matt Mahoney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2009 - 14:29:48 MST
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Vladimir Nesov <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > For me the conclusion is clear:
> > Any AI with a hard-coded law for "being nice","prevent murders" or any
> > other non-modifiable procedure will with great probability be overrun
> > by a system without those hardwritten rules.
> This is vacuous: is it bad that civilization got destroyed, because
> there was no moral way of avoiding destruction? From that
> civilization's perspective, it just might be an optimal course of
> action, it won even though it's destroyed.
Morals are not weak or strong, only different. Whatever happens to the human race will be judged good from the perspective of the species that replaces us.
-- Matt Mahoney, email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT