If you don't understand something I've written, please ask for clarification. Don't guess what I said and respond to that instead; that's obnoxious. Your comparison of my argument to

"Otherwise the terrorists will win!"

Leads me to believe that you didn't understand what I said at all. How is destroying the world by accident like terrorism?

Er, characterising someone who disagrees with you on a technical point as "obnoxious" is not terribly great manners in itself! I never compared destroying the world by accident with terrorism - you appear to be projecting. However, I am not especially interested in the conversation being dragged into the gutter in this way.

If you did have a good argument favouring closed source software and reduced transparency I think there has been a reasonable chance to present it. However, if you can't even be civil, perhaps you should consider waiting until you can.

A Brief Overview of Machine Ethics

by lukeprog 1 min read5th Mar 201191 comments


Earlier, I lamented that even though Eliezer named scholarship as one of the Twelve Virtues of Rationality, there is surprisingly little interest in (or citing of) the academic literature on some of Less Wrong's central discussion topics.

Previously, I provided an overview of formal epistemology, that field of philosophy that deals with (1) mathematically formalizing concepts related to induction, belief, choice, and action, and (2) arguing about the foundations of probability, statistics, game theory, decision theory, and algorithmic learning theory.

Now, I've written Machine Ethics is the Future, an introduction to machine ethics, the academic field that studies the problem of how to design artificial moral agents that act ethically (along with a few related problems). There, you will find PDFs of a dozen papers on the subject.