I think "AIs make paperclips" has probably obtained more audience than all of my other conceptual originations combined. I guess it's not very surprising that it's an invention that had the potential for easy misunderstanding, and that it's the misunderstanding that spread.
-
-
4/ The key intended ideas are, (a), it requires no defect of intelligence, rationality, or reflectivity to optimize for paperclips, and (b), if you *don't* manage to align an AI and have it do something interpretable, the result will look as meaningless as paperclips.
Show this thread -
5/ Imagining that an AI just goes on making paperclips because it's mechanical and unreflective sends the opposite message of (a). Supposing that the AI was meant to run a paperclip factory, and deliberately successfully aligned to do that, sends the opposite message of (b).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh, so like the factory programming just accidentally becomes intelligent enough to "explode?"
-
That is the MUTATION of the meme which is the OPPOSITE of the scenario I was originally describing, yes. My scenario was that AGI happened in a dedicated research lab, alignment failed, and the resulting utility function had its maximum at tiny molecules shaped like paperclips.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.