Ted Chiang is good writer, but bad analyst: "AIs that destroy humanity … incapable of doing something most every adult has done: taking a step back & asking whether their current course of action is really a good idea."https://www.buzzfeed.com/tedchiang/the-real-danger-to-civilization-isnt-ai-its-runaway?utm_term=.glaRWYmkrP&ref=mobile_share#.xdQYrdk2NG …
-
-
Also, simple ignorance of history. I named the notion of Friendly AI, which of course had predecessors in SF long before, and from web archives it looks like I also reified the notion of an expected paperclip maximizer (likewise). Neither I nor those SF writers were billionaires.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
An AI you can't empathize with is really just a new technology: it creates new production possibilities, makes some existing techniques inefficient or futile. If it shares your endgame or convinces you to amend your endgame, then it's quasi-human.
-
I hope that's not meant to be an exhaustive list of possibilities, because I don't see a listing for strongly superhuman expected paperclip maximizers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't see how an AI paying $1MM for a paperclip is different than if a new technology was created such that one can create $1MM in value via trivial cost, cold fusion or something. Presumably, the AI creates "$1MM worth of goods", and is not just printing money.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.