Bostrom implicitly makes some assumptions about the attributes of AGI (it uses classical logic, it's a utility maximizer...) and extrapolates certain subgoals based on those attributes.
Are you saying that his argument is valid, but the premises don't hold? Or are you saying that even if the premises are true we still can't extrapolate these subgoals?
In the second case, we might make a distinction between a 'strict' and a 'lenient' interpretation of his argument. We could make a maximizer that wants to commit suicide, this AI wouldn't have the subgoal of self-preservation. With a 'strict' reading the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But a 'lenient' reading might be, there are some possible AGI's without those subgoals, but in the vast majority of cases those subgoals do follow from the premises.
Second question: Was your characterization of Bostrom's AGI as embodying 'white colonial supremacy' inspired by his apology scandal, or was that unrelated?
Bostrom implicitly makes some assumptions about the attributes of AGI (it uses classical logic, it's a utility maximizer...) and extrapolates certain subgoals based on those attributes.
Are you saying that his argument is valid, but the premises don't hold? Or are you saying that even if the premises are true we still can't extrapolate these subgoals?
In the second case, we might make a distinction between a 'strict' and a 'lenient' interpretation of his argument. We could make a maximizer that wants to commit suicide, this AI wouldn't have the subgoal of self-preservation. With a 'strict' reading the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But a 'lenient' reading might be, there are some possible AGI's without those subgoals, but in the vast majority of cases those subgoals do follow from the premises.
Second question: Was your characterization of Bostrom's AGI as embodying 'white colonial supremacy' inspired by his apology scandal, or was that unrelated?