I don’t disagree, but unfortunately a not insignificant part of humanity seems to think that their happiness primarily depends on knowing that other people are suffering harder than they are. So that’s perhaps not the right thing to optimise for.
1. Deriving happiness from someone else's suffering should be considered a mental disease to be treated.
2. Connecting people to a virtual reality where each person lives in absolute control of their own reality, matrix style. I.e, a sadist can live in a reality where they make other virtual people suffer, without actually making real people suffer.
AI should be optimized to make all humans healthy, happy and safe without exception.
No. AI should be optimized for the one true good: maximum market returns. Personally I think that will only be achieved once humans are removed from the market system and decommissioned.
Comments
AI should be optimized to make all humans healthy, happy and safe without exception.
It's only optimized to make prior knowledge useful in new situations.
well .. it only applies a rule to inputs
can we impose this of authors "this book should only be causing good things when it is read and knowledge used"
I don’t disagree, but unfortunately a not insignificant part of humanity seems to think that their happiness primarily depends on knowing that other people are suffering harder than they are. So that’s perhaps not the right thing to optimise for.
Ways to solve the conflict you describe:
1. Deriving happiness from someone else's suffering should be considered a mental disease to be treated.
2. Connecting people to a virtual reality where each person lives in absolute control of their own reality, matrix style. I.e, a sadist can live in a reality where they make other virtual people suffer, without actually making real people suffer.
No. AI should be optimized for the one true good: maximum market returns. Personally I think that will only be achieved once humans are removed from the market system and decommissioned.