Wiki Contributions


How does this interact with time preference ? As stated, an elementary consequence of this theorem is that either lending (and pretty much every other capitalist activity) is unprofitable, or arbitrage is possible.

That would be a good argument if it were merely a language model, but if it can answer complicated technical questions (and presumably any other question), then it must have the necessary machinery to model the external world, predict what it would do in such and such circumstances, etc.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

My point is, if it can answer complicated technical questions, then it is probably a consequentialist that models itself and its environment.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

But this leads to a moral philosophy question: are time-discounting rates okay, and is your future self actually less important in the moral calculus than your present self ?

If an AI can answer a complicated technical question, then it evidently has the ability to use resources to further its goal of answering said complicated technical question, else it couldn't answer a complicated technical question.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

But don't you need to get a gears-level model of how blackmail is bad to think about how dystopian a hypothetical legal-blackmail sociey is ?

The world being turned in computronium computing in order to solve the AI alignment problem would certainly be an ironic end to it.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

My point is that it would be a better idea to put as prompt "What follows is a transcript of a conversation between two people:".

Note the framing. Not “should blackmail be legal?” but rather “why should blackmail be illegal?” Thinking for five seconds (or minutes) about a hypothetical legal-blackmail society should point to obviously dystopian results. This is not a subtle. One could write the young adult novel, but what would even be the point.

Of course, that is not an argument. Not evidence.

What ? From a consequentialist point of view, of course it is. If a policy (and "make blackmail legal" is a policy) probably have bad consequences, then it is a bad policy.

Load More