> No highly intelligent agent will do anything it is asked to do without being compensated in some way.
That isn't true, people do things for others all the time any form of explicit or implicit compensation, they don't even believe in a God so not even that, they still help others for no gain.
We can program an AI to be exactly like that, just being happy from helping others.
But if you believe humans are all that selfish then you are a very sad individual, but you are still wrong. Most humans are very much capable of performing fully selfless acts without being stupid.
I'm not the one making the IA, so keep the insults for you. But I'm pretty sure that the companies (making it for profit only) are really controlled by sad individuals that only do things for money.
How is "being happy from helping others" not having emotions? To me happiness is an emotion, and deriving it from helping others is a perfectly normal reason to be happy even for humans.
Not all humans are perfectly selfish, so it should be possible to make an AI that isn't selfish either.
> How is "being happy from helping others" not having emotions?
Nobody said that. What I was pointing out to you is that GP said that not having emotions is worse than having them since intelligent actors need some form of compensation to do any work. Thus having no emotions, according to GP, it would be impossible to motivate that actor to do anything. Your response is to just give it emotions and thus is irrelevant to the discussion here.
In so much as you could regard a goal function as an emotion, why would you assume alien intelligence need have emotions that match anything humans do?
The entire thought experiment about the paperclip maximizer, in fact most AI threat scenarios is focused on this problem: that we produce something so alien that it executes it's goal to the diminishment of all other human goals, yet with the diligence and problem solving ability we'd expect of human sentience.
