this is dangerously fun ... kiss goodbye your productivity for today
Universal Paperclips
101–110 of 174 posts
Re: Universal Paperclips
#102Don't start playing this game, not even for a quick test, unless you want to find yourself manufacturing world supplies of paperclips in the night.
You have been warned, this thing is so addictive that I'm surprised it isn't illegal:^)
Re: Universal Paperclips
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the researchers don't think existential threats are realistic, and paper maximizing thought experiments are silly. Maybe they're wrong, but maybe not. It's easy to imagine AI takeover scenarios by giving them unlimited powers, it's hard to show the actual path to such abilities. It's also hard to understand why an AI smart enough to paperclip the world wouldn't also be smart enough to realize the futility in doing…
> It's also hard to understand why an AI smart enough to paperclip the world wouldn't also be smart enough to realize the futility in doing so. Terminal goals can't be futile, since they do not serve to achieve other (instrumental) goals. Compare: Humans like to have protected sex, watch movies, eat ice cream, even though these activities might be called "futile" or "useless" (by someone who doesn't have those goals)…
It's not like you want to eat ice cream constantly, even if it means making everything into ice cream.
Of course the premise becomes that the AI has been instructed to make paperclips. They should have hired a better prompt engineer, capable of actually specifying the goals more clearly. I don't think an AI that eradicates humankind, will have such simplistic goals, if an AI ever becomes the end of humans. Cybermen, though, are inevitable.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realize there was an ending! not sure if that was added after I played last or not but I'll have to check that out.
It's a typical incremental game-reset finish, if that works as a non-spoilery answer. AFAIK there's only one, and no reset bonus / nothing changes after it. The full story is readable through the decrypter. I can elaborate if you'd prefer, just figure I should try to stay safe by default :)
no it's cool, I'll check it out for myself :)
I just remember the last time I played, I got to some point where nothing new was happening for a good long while, so I assumed I was at the end of the content.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you accept the implied premise that there are irresponsible deployments of AI out there, the alternative explanation is that they did consider the ramifications and simply don't care. That's even worse. Calling them ignorant is actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Or the researchers don't think existential threats are realistic, and paper maximizing thought experiments are silly. Maybe they're wrong, but maybe not. It's easy to imagine AI takeover scenarios by giving them unlimited powers, it's hard to show the actual path to such abilities. It's also hard to understand why an AI smart enough to paperclip the world wouldn't also be smart enough to realize the futility in doing…
> AGIs would understand we don't want to paperclip the world.
Even if they did, what if they aren't smart enough for eloquent humans to convince them it's for the greater good. True AGIs will need a moral code to match their intelligence, and someone will have to decide what's good and bad to make that moral code.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#106Is there a leaderboard somewhere. I reached Full Autonomy in 2hr 47min 54 sec. I think it can be done faster.
Speedrunners are beating the whole game from scratch within 1h 30m or so.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you honestly believe that the only people who have thought about the ramifications of AI are Sci Fi authors? I can guarantee people who spend years researching and building advanced language models have thought about the ramifications of their work. This isn’t Jurassic Park.
If you accept the implied premise that there are irresponsible deployments of AI out there, the alternative explanation is that they did consider the ramifications and simply don't care. That's even worse. Calling them ignorant is actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Another explanation is that there are those who considered and thoughtfully weighed the ramifications, but came to a different conclusion. It is unfair to assume a decision process was agnostic to harm or plain ignorant.
For example, perhaps the lesser-evil argument played a role in the decision process: would a world where deep fakes are ubiquitous and well-known by the public be better than a world where deep fakes have a potent impact because they are generated seldomly and strategically by a handful of (nefarious) state sponsors?
Re: Universal Paperclips
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you accept the implied premise that there are irresponsible deployments of AI out there, the alternative explanation is that they did consider the ramifications and simply don't care. That's even worse. Calling them ignorant is actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Or the researchers don't think existential threats are realistic, and paper maximizing thought experiments are silly. Maybe they're wrong, but maybe not. It's easy to imagine AI takeover scenarios by giving them unlimited powers, it's hard to show the actual path to such abilities. It's also hard to understand why an AI smart enough to paperclip the world wouldn't also be smart enough to realize the futility in doing…
I agree completely with your first paragraph, and disagree completely with your second.
"Futility" is subjective, and the whole purpose of the thought experiment is to point out that our predication of "futility" or really any other purely mental construct does not become automatically inherited by a mind we create. These imaginary arbitrarily powerful AIs would definitely be able to model a human being describing something as futile. Whether or not it persues that objective has nothing to do with it understanding what we do or don't want.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#109The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings when it is programmed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked w…
Some of these thought experiments seem very disconnected from how industry works. Like, we're saying "make as many paperclips as possible" as our instruction to this agent, not even "make as many as profitable" or "make up to X per day at a cost of less than Y per day"? The solution is proposed to be "program the AI to value human life" instead of the far simpler "put basic constraints on the process like you would in a business today"?
Ok, so it's a more general example of worries about "managing superintelligence" but IMO it does the debate a disservice by being so obviously ludicrous that it's hard to square "naive paperclip-maximizing AI" with "superintelligence."
I think if we're going to survive all this stuff it's much more likely to be because the private parties with the wherewithal to unleash an AI with the ability to affect the world to that extent will largely be ones with enough resources to have narrow banal goals and narrow banal constraints including self-preservation too, not because we figure out some sort of general purpose "AGIs that are aligned with humans" solution.
Kinda like with nukes.
Re: Universal Paperclips
#110The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings when it is programmed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked w…
Some of these thought experiments seem very disconnected from how industry works. Like, we're saying "make as many paperclips as possible" as our instruction to this agent, not even "make as many as profitable" or "make up to X per day at a cost of less than Y per day"? The solution is proposed to be "program the AI to value human life" instead of the far simpler "put basic constraints on the process like you would i…
The point is it’s virtually impossible to put constraints on it that make it do what you want because if it’s more intelligent than you it can always think of something that you won’t, that’s technically within the rules you set but not at all intended. That’s why we’d need to make it care about the underlying intentions and values, but that’s also really hard