Timeline for Why would a decision making machine decide to destroy itself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2016 at 17:23 | comment | added | Cody | I'm not arguing that we're polluting too much and that we shouldn't pollute less, I'm saying we're already screwed, the machine saw this, and gave up. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 17:21 | comment | added | Ben Millwood | You can't simultaneously argue that we're polluting too much, and that we shouldn't pollute less. That's not how "too much" works. Of course the right answer will involve tradeoffs. But advising no action is not escaping the problem, it's just endorsing the status quo solution. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 16:54 | comment | added | Cody | We're already drawing too many resources and polluting too much, right now is NOT the right amount to continue. Recommending to dial back our production will make access to these goods harder for those that don't have them already, and harder for those who do have them as well, which would cause a decrease in the well being of all humans. There is no correct answer for the machine to give, so it orders its own destruction. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 16:50 | comment | added | Ben Millwood | Why doesn't the machine tell people to adopt less toxic manufacturing practices? Or, to put it another way: how plausible is it that the amount of toxic manufacturing we have arrived at by natural market forces, is exactly the amount it would be appropriate to continue with, given complete oversight of all the relevant information and the ability to fully assess the consequence of our actions? | |
| Dec 19, 2016 at 21:55 | history | answered | Cody | CC BY-SA 3.0 |