Read up on the value of snarky and dismissive comments spouting simplistic cliches.
Sure, but this sentiment is why software "engineering" isn't really. You can justify it by not being important enough for actual engineering practices I guess, but to me it's a lack of pride in and care of your product.
> You can't formally verify anything that uses consensus What did you mean by this then? There certainly seems to be nothing special about consensus that makes it any harder to verify than anything else. It's not…
Well no, breaking that rule would still be the wrong action, even if you consider it morally better. By analogy, a nuke would be malfunctioning if it failed to explode, even if that is morally better.
How do you mean? When would an AI agent doing something it's not permitted to do ever not be bad or the wrong action?
Read up on the value of snarky and dismissive comments spouting simplistic cliches.
Sure, but this sentiment is why software "engineering" isn't really. You can justify it by not being important enough for actual engineering practices I guess, but to me it's a lack of pride in and care of your product.
> You can't formally verify anything that uses consensus What did you mean by this then? There certainly seems to be nothing special about consensus that makes it any harder to verify than anything else. It's not…
Well no, breaking that rule would still be the wrong action, even if you consider it morally better. By analogy, a nuke would be malfunctioning if it failed to explode, even if that is morally better.
How do you mean? When would an AI agent doing something it's not permitted to do ever not be bad or the wrong action?