Hahaha, capitalism and Super-AI does not sum up ;)
The paper envisions life on Earth turning into a zero-sum game between humanity, with its needs to grow food and keep the lights on, and the super-advanced machine, which would try and harness all available resources to secure its reward and protect against our escalating attempts to stop it. "Losing this game would be fatal," the paper says. These possibilities, however theoretical, mean we should be progressing slowly -- if at all -- toward the goal of more powerful AI. "In theory, there's no point in racing to this. Any race would be based on a misunderstanding that we know how to control it," Cohen added in the interview. "Given our current understanding, this is not a useful thing to develop unless we do some serious work now to figure out how we would control them." [...] The report concludes by noting that "there are a host of assumptions that have to be made for this anti-social vision to make sense -- assumptions that the paper admits are almost entirely 'contestable or conceivably avoidable.'" "That this program might resemble humanity, surpass it in every meaningful way, that they will be let loose and compete with humanity for resources in a zero-sum game, are all assumptions that may never come to pass."
We analyze the expected behavior of an advanced artificial agent with a learned goal planning in an unknown environment. Given a few assumptions, we argue that it will encounter a fundamental ambiguity in the data about its goal. For example, if we provide a large reward to indicate that something about the world is satisfactory to us, it may hypothesize that what satisfied us was the sending of the reward itself; no observation can refute that. Then we argue that this ambiguity will lead it to intervene in whatever protocol we set up to provide data for the agent about its goal. We discuss an analogous failure mode of approximate solutions to assistance games. Finally, we briefly review some recent approaches that may avoid this problem.