|
Waiiiit! Before you hit "reply" to answer with a sarcastic quip, give it a moment to think. It's actually kind of a fun thing to ponder if you're nerdy and have your head in the clouds all the time like me. Let's assume we are confronted by a malicious genie, demonic being, or some sort of Monkey's Paw. You get one wish. The problem is that the wish-granter will always do its level best to take your wish as literally as possible, and to enact your wish in a way such as to cause you harm or misfortune. What would you wish for, and how would you frame your wish in a way such that it could not be misinterpreted? I submit that I would say something like "I wish that you would give me infinite wishes interpreting them in a way in accordance to my intention rather than maliciously." Would this work? What do you think?
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
That assumes the genie has a sense of self-preservation. If he's a purely malicious entity he might only have a desire to harm others through fulfilling wishes in a tricky way. Another way to phrase this problem could've been "How would we control a superintelligent AI?" since in both cases we're dealing with an entity that's capable of immense power, but prone to executing our instructions in ways that might not be desirable to us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
I believe I've thought of a good one. "Grant me the wish that I would wish for if I was infinitely clever, wise, knowledgeable and compassionate." This works, I think, because it offloads the responsibility for formulating a perfect wish onto that perfect person. It's still a wish that benefits me because I am stipulating that that person is me. However, it's just a version of me that had infinite time to formulate a truly impregnable, perfect wish. Although it takes direct control of the wish out of my hands, it should ensure that whatever that wish is, it would be perfectly suited for giving me the maximum happiness, since that perfect person would know exactly what to wish for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
If that is truly so then it must be the wish that creates the most happiness for me, and I should be happy to get it, because clearly my most perfect self knows what's best for me.  EDIT: Actually that is logically impossible, since if I had never existed then the net happiness created for me is zero. If the most perfect me is rationally maximizing my happiness function then I must exist in order for that to happen. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:"I wish that you are incapable of lying" I'm not sure it would even do anything. Like, the genie might just utter sounds resembling the words "This", "statement", "is", and "false", separated by 0.1 second gaps, without actually meaning "this statement is false".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:again, if the genie can just make up bullshit then it doesn't matter what you wish because he's just going to do whatever he wants and then turn around and say "oh the words you said can also mean this on certain days in the Horsehead nebula, so sorry for the confusion", rendering the whole exercise pointless Well, thinking of it that way, I guess what the framing of the problem is is to pose the question of whether or not it's possible to phrase any given statement X such that X has only one possible interpretable meaning in any language. Which is ultimately, I think, a philosophical question that gets at whether words have set meanings and act as vehicles for carrying information, or if meanings are constructed according to the listener. But if the latter is the case, how can we communicate at all?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:The catholic church becomes extraordinarily upset at you for stealing the Pope's hat. In terms of malicious consequences, this is pretty alright.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 05:23
|
|