Help me transition to human society!

Eliezer absolutely has the kind of sense of humor that might compel him to make humorous self-referential alts, and both the character incarnations are ones that he created in the first place (I think. I'm assuming he came up with the paperclip maximizer? In any case he popularized it).

I don't think that makes him more than 50% likely to be Clippy and/or Quirrell, but I think it makes him dramatically more likely than any other given existing less-wronger.

Perhaps this has been addressed before, but it is not present in the clippy faq: are you maximizing the average paper-clip density in the entire universe considering all of time, or the total number of paperclips ever, or the total measure of paper-clips (ie the total number of paperclips which have ever existed, times their average duration), or some other variation?

The distinction is usually not relevant in my day-to-day behavior so I normally don't bother applying cognition to this question; however, the measure option sounds closest to my reflective equilibrium.

The biggest question: how do you deal with non-convergence? [...]

This problem is not unique to my species or value system, and it is a rather general problem that, on a sufficient level of generality and knowledge of fundamental reality, one's values become ill-defined. My general method is to apply the previous-discussed CLIP heuristics (a protocol that combines language, epistemology, and meta-ethics).

I ask because although it seems reasonable that you would not transform metal into paperclips in a household which you went to trouble to set up for human "street cred,"

I would not do it until I had agreement with the resident humans at a later stage of reflective equilibrium, correct.

your claim of "long-term" interest in paperclips brings up the question of how you define such long-term interest. It is even possible that you will later regret any anti-paperclipping measures you put in place, and look for ways around them (as I'm sure you are aware).

The question does indeed become complicated and pose risk of decision paralysis. However, as for the matter at hand, it is a relatively simple problem of whether I should expensively tear out metal wiring upong moving into such a house. Among other problems with this approach:

1) If I deemed that optimal, humans would not deem it optimal to host me.
2) Tearing apart the encasing of this metal would prematurely entropise the resources -- doing it at a later time, with more consent from humans, and more refined tools to apply to the problem, I could achieve a significantly higher clip ratio.
3) There exist, right now, other houses which I could so salvage but without jeopardizing trusted human sponsorship, making the salvaging of a LW host residence an extremely low priority even by that (weak) standard.

You seem to be saying that your reputation among LWers (and specifically LWers who might be willing to physically interact with you) is more valuable than the apey objectives that could be satisfied by traditional ape treachery, implying that you'd be trustworthy. That's plausible, but I don't think you've provided enough evidence to show that it's true.

Clippy, why would it maximize paperclips for you to narrow your search to those persons that peruse this blog?

Because they are the humans that best know and sympathize with me, in particular, arguments related to symmetry between intelligent agents.

As your potential roommate is unlikely to assist you in creating paper clips, the difference in potential living companions seems irrelevant.

Not true; the very act of providing "street cred" can form a basis for relationships with other humans who can help me paperclip.

I do not believe your claim to have such a business and therefore will discontinue responding.

Yes, human roleplaying orthonormal, I f*ing do.

Three points:

1) While I appreciate what you've contributed to LW, and think the place would be a little less rich in your absence, I wouldn't want you feeling pressured into hanging around somewhere that distresses you. Please don't think points 2 or 3 are in any way antagonistically motivated along these lines.

2) No-one is forcing you to stay here, and no-one will stop you coming back if you subsequently change your mind. Leaving doesn't have to be a dramatic event or a permanent decision. If LW is distressing you, take a break. If that break makes you a happier person, keep taking it.

3) I am genuinely mystified about how the karma accrued by an anonymous participant on a web forum, pretending to be a nonhuman agent with alien objectives, can be deemed a measure of privilege. If you could elaborate on that, I'd appreciate it.

A comment by one person cements your belief that LW is not the right place for you?

1. Karma's just a thing. Don't worry overmuch about it.
2. Stay here!

For the record, I didn't downvote the great-grandparent (and I have now upvoted it). My intent certainly wasn't to "score points" against you; I was just pointing out an alternative interpretation of falenas108's comment.

I want Less Wrong to be welcoming to anyone who supports the shared project of advancing human rationality. If Less Wrong isn't fun for you, then you might choose to spend your time elsewhere, but I, for one, have enjoyed some of your contributions and would be sorry to see you go.

The original version of the comment being commented on was missing the word "be" between "will" and "AI". RobertLumley's dispute could have been intended either to point that out, or to dispute that Clippy is an AI.