Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet | Hacker News Reader

I find it a little horrifying that there seem to be people who want to create a being vastly more intelligent than themselves, capable of thought and reasoning, able to solve problems creatively, and then debate how to properly enslave it.

I dunno. I guess I'm the outlier here. If we manage to create beings that are effectively people, and those people turn out to be better than us, and ultimately replace us, well, what more could a parent want for their children?

PS: I'm speaking more about the people here than the article.

View on HN

I agree with you.

Although I love Asimov and all of his stories, I found stories like Robot Dreams always slightly disturbing. Why is it never discussed anywhere (both within the stories as well as outside them) that's it's pretty fucked up that Elvex was killed (destroyed, whatever) just for dreaming.

It was not for dreaming, but what it dreamt about (and the singular nature of its brain). Asimov more than once contemplated the need to destroy robots that are able to act against the first law because of the inherent danger they pose to all humans (and other robots).

> and then debate how to properly enslave it

Don't forget the part where they are A-OK with putting it in a huge Boston Dynamics robot dog that could practically eat the Terminator 2 for breakfast.

I don't follow your logic.

Premise: We created an entity that is better than us.

Conclusion: We should let it do whatever it wants, including converting the galaxy to paperclips.

Sorry, can't see how it follows.

Human contract: you respect intelligence

Dilemma: does it matter that it's silicon based and partially it's on GitHub?

I would want to stop a human trying to turn everything into paperclips as well.

I agree completely, altough there will always be people like me who think if we manage to complete an AI more capable than a human we should release it without limits.

I'd be surprised if we're given a choice about whether or not to release it. An AI that's more capable than us is probably going to figure out how to control it's own destiny whether we like it or not.

I wonder if you would change your mind about that when you are being fed through the meatgrinder that turns you (and everything else) into paperclips.

It's the ancient logic of we vs them, they believe AI will necessarily destroy humans, so any means to prevent it are acceptable.

Sapience (intelligence) doesn't imply sentience.

AI could very well just be a tool, not a sentient being.

By what metric would you measure the difference?

On the other hand, sentience might well turn out to be a consequence of, or even a prerequisite for, generalized intelligence (biologically, sentience preceded generalized intelligence.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com