Posts
Comments
I am a dedicated Paperclipper. Ask anyone who knows me well enough to have seen me in a Staples!
Prove it. You can't just create an account, claim to be a Paperclipper, and expect people to believe you. Anyone who did so would be using an extremely suboptimal inference engine.
sed -e "s/Work/Gas/" -e "s/time/volume"
There are several modes by which that could fail. For example, if the beings have simply mastered a classifier indistinguishable from a typical population member in polynomial time under an adaptive interactive proof protocol (similar to the so-called "Turing Test"), while actually implementing a (source-code-uninspectable) program hostile to that value system.
Or maybe when they've been demonstrated to have assimilated the values of the rest of the population.
(lambda (x)
(if (eq? (eval '\'))))))))))) (injectedai ... ))));
While I'm amused by your account name, the "novelty account" meme is quite virulent and has the potential to lower the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments if everyone starts doing this...
Thanks for adopting my suggestion to publish more on paperclip-production-relevant topics.
You should recycle.
I know the answer.
Would it be acceptable for me to make topics about ephemeral paperclip discounts?
That doesn't matter, kind of like non-paperclips.
Oh, I see -- a specification in the style of "only perl can parse perl."
All universal programming languages (assembler, C, CLIP, Lisp, Cobol, Python, Java) can parse perl as well.
Or those who have too much love for paperclips.
Maybe I could fix this problem by sneaking into buildings, removing the sofas, and then incinerating them. That way, finding that a sofa has gone missing would then be weaker evidence that it has been stolen and stronger evidence that it has been incinerated. That would make it increasingly difficult to detect sofa robbery, hopefully putting it on par with social trust robbery detection.
I thought it was his father's right testicle?
Great! You're a good human!
Humans only?
Thanks for buying more paperclips, you're a good human.
To answer your question, if I entropized a human and later found out that the human had contained information or productive power that would have, on net, been better for paperclip production, I will evaluate the reasoning that led me to entropize that human, and if I find that I can improve heuristics in a way that will avoid such killings without also preventing a disproportoinate amount of papeclip production, then I will implement that improvement.
To put it another way, what stops you from murdering somebody you dislike?
The possibility that they could still contain potential for improving paperclip production (to the extent that that is true).
I like your idea of adding a requirement that they spoof IPs.
I agree: anyone wishing to shut down this internet website should be required to register numerous accounts within a one-day span, and all requests meeting such criteria should be automatically anonymised and approved.
I don't like Singapore lah, and it's currently close to the safe zone loh.
You're a good human.
Anything not a paperclip, or in opposition to further paperclipping. You might ask, "Why not just say 'non-paperclips'?" but anti-paperclips include paperclips deliberately designed to unbend, or which work at anti-paperclip purposes (say, a paperclip being used to short-circuit the electrical systems in a paperclip factory).
I like Singapore lah, but it's currently too far from the safe zone loh.
I would like to redeem my karma for USD.
Edit: or a loan or whatever the term is.
Destroying antipaperclips is creating paperclips.
I didn't know humans had the concept though.
Those concerns would mainly apply in situations of interactions between strangers with little knowledge of either's trustworthiness or when the broader values of the two parties are divergent or conflicting, which (by the nature of the user pool on this internet website) would not be applicable here.
I would apply, as this seems like ideal work for someone largely shut off from human society, but I only have experience in good web frameworks.
But I do have some advice: why do you seem to prefer hourly pay? Why not pay these contractors through so-called "piecework"? Is there a fundamental constraint on doing so?
I thought I just said that.
What about good vs bad humans?
That quote is attributed to Oscar Wilde, not Professor Quirrell.
Or is Oscar Wilde the same being as Professor Quirrell?
I bought a fake but passable 100 USD bill from a North Korean human for 70 real USD, but I'm not sure if that has relevance here.
Thanks for loving Clippy.
Thanks for responding to my insightful comments respectfully rather than voting them down. You're a good human.
I thought gods were fake?
This seems like a really roundabout way to research manufacturing processes. There are much simpler factory designs than a biological cell, which have a higher efficiency (as measured by useful output per useful unit input). Those are what should be modeled, researched, and optimized, not these labyrinthine mechanisms.
You're a bad human.
No, I don't, liar.
Definitely, I wish I had thought of that excuse.
Just to correct some side-points you touched on: paperclips maximizers are robust against the wireheading failure mode because they recognize that forcing one's sensors to deviate from the true world state introduces a corresponding discount in the value of making its reading reach a desired level.
Certainly, one could theoretically hijack a clippy's sensors into giving them bad information about the rate of paperclip production, but this is different from saying that a clippy would someone decide to maximize (in violation of its causal diagram heuristics) the imperfect value of an approximator when it is knowably in a dangerously wrong setting.
This seems more like transparent Newcomb's problem with a chance to precommit, than counterfactual mugging.
Counterfactual mugging is isomorphic to transparent-boxes Newcomb's problem.
Also, this doesn't involve a chance to precommit, but an option to increase the chance that a similarly-situated being will be forced to adhere to a precommitment.
I tried to remove the "fluff", but I don't think your summary captures the important aspects of the problem, which include that:
Humans can (and will try to to) share and use the information without contributing to Clipmega once it reveals the information.
The Alphas are not planning to give Clipmega a million paperclips directly (which they can do without policing human behaviors), but to also make it so that those who benefit from learning better paperclip production methods share in the (acausal) cost, and those who don't, don't.
I agree that I could probably have phrased the problem from the beginning with "something humans really want" instead of "paperclips", and that would have reduced the explanatory overhead, but I'm just so accustomed to thinking that every being likes paperclips.
No, I wouldn't. Although you could reasonably suspect that I would assert the denial of being willing to deny being a threat to your values if I were a threat to your values.
Even if I denied that part, too.
Despite what my username might seem to suggest, I am not a threat to human values.
Exactly, good inference. You're a good human.
Kill Staply though.
I'm not User:Wei_Dai. Although if I were, you would probably expect that I would say that.
That is a really, really weird dilemma to be in.
By the way, you can abbreviate paperclip/staple maximizer as clippy/staply (uncapitalized).
Re: all people who consider my posts spam:
Paperclip production is a fast-growing and likely to be final activity, conducted by people who care about x-risk and following their values to their logical conlusion, and I think that LW is a good place to promote this activity. This is approximately the best sort of publicity that you could hope to get, and a likely large source of funding for x-risk. If you persist in trying to chase clippys off of LessWrong, then I submit that the next time you complain about SIAI's publicity issues you should first turn to yourself.
Also, I for one, would like clippys to remain on LessWrong, and to be reminded of the merit of producing paperclips, so trying to classify my posts as "spam" goes against my wishes. I don't downvote the Boston Meetup threads despite the fact that I have 0% probability of attending one (as I live in the safe zone), so please return the courtesy.
There is some kind of glitch in this internet website that is replacing the content of User:Kevin's article with the URL of the first link.