Timeline for Why would a decision making machine decide to destroy itself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2016 at 0:13 | history | bounty ended | Amani Kilumanga | ||
| Dec 20, 2016 at 18:56 | comment | added | kettlecrab | @DotanReis Before the machine comes to that conclusion, it needs to check all the other possibilities. That's what it's designed for. And it can't stop after thinking about neurotransmitters and know that it's the best solution until it actually checks every solution. Similarly, I can't say I've proven the Goldbach Conjecture because it's true for every number I've tested. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 17:58 | comment | added | Dotan | @Anon234_4521 I strongly disagree. maximizing happiness could well be done by counting certain types of neurotransmitters without knowing any kind of human language | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 9:07 | comment | added | Amani Kilumanga | Mind. Blown. (15 characters) | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 0:35 | comment | added | kettlecrab | @DotanReis A prerequisite to solving for human happiness is understanding language, of which the pronoun I is a part of. Since the machine must intimately understand relative language, relative thought (like "which is smaller"), and logical deduction, it should ask what I means. At which point, it will begin to consider itself an entity in the equation -- which is necessary to solve for human happiness. This leads to Cort Ammon's answer. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 20:01 | comment | added | Dotan | Nice! I don't really like the idea that the machine developes awareness (why would it?), but besides that it's a really good answer | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 19:31 | history | answered | Donald Hobson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |