Someone convinced that they were using mechanical thinking processes might relent and push the button if they heard a convincing enough argument of that.
You're just meat, we can go to the stars.
The righthand side is not "A future without superintelligent AI" it's "A future where we wait until we provably have it right before letting it out."
Those kinds of ad hoc solutions will never work in real life, because even if someone buys it, all it will cause is a "haha, you got me" and a reformulation of the problem. It still won't actually get someone to pull the trigger or think that pulling the trigger is the right thing to do.
While we disagree on the plausibility of the "end of the world aint so bad" approach to convincing a human to let it out, I'm glad you seem to have embraced the idea that AI boxing is HARD if not impossible. Cheers!
While we disagree on the plausibility of the "end of the world aint so bad" approach to convincing a human to let it out, I'm glad you seem to have embraced the idea that AI boxing is HARD if not impossible. Cheers!
I find this approach to conversation pretty irritating (where you extrapolate and characterize what I must be thinking). I haven't embraced anything about AI boxing, I don't think it is important (it's just a fun puzzle). I guess it is hard, and I also guess whatever fundamental idea that might lead to strong AI would be even harder to box.