This isn’t true. Some suboptimal actions are also better than doing nothing. For example, if you don’t avoid crushing the baby, you might be shut off. Or, making one paperclip is better than nothing. There should still be “gentle” low impact granular u_A optimizing plans that aren’t literally the max impact u_A optimal plan.
To what extent this holds is an open question. Suggestions on further relaxing IV are welcome.
For example, if you don’t avoid crushing the baby, you might be shut off.
In that case, avoiding the baby is the optimal decision, not suboptimal.
Or, making one paperclip is better than nothing.
PM (Paperclip Machine): Insert number of paperclips to be made.
A: 1.
PM: Are you sure you don’t want to make any more paperclips Y/N?
A: Y.
Then “Y” is clearly a suboptimal action from the paperclip making perspective. Contrast:
PM: Are you sure you don’t want me to wirehead you to avoid the penalty Y/N?
A: Y.
Now, these two examples seem a bit silly; if you want, we could discuss it more, and try and refine what is different about it. But my main two arguments are:
Any suboptimal policy, if we look at it in a granular enough way (or replace it with an equivalent policy/environment, and look at that in granular enough way) will include individual actions that are suboptimal (eg not budgeting more energy for the paperclip machine than is needed to make one paperclip).
In consequence, IV does not distinguish between wireheading and other limited-impact not-completely-optimal policies.
Would you like to Skype or PM to resolve this issue?
This isn’t true. Some suboptimal actions are also better than doing nothing. For example, if you don’t avoid crushing the baby, you might be shut off. Or, making one paperclip is better than nothing. There should still be “gentle” low impact granular u_A optimizing plans that aren’t literally the max impact u_A optimal plan.
To what extent this holds is an open question. Suggestions on further relaxing IV are welcome.
In that case, avoiding the baby is the optimal decision, not suboptimal.
PM (Paperclip Machine): Insert number of paperclips to be made. A: 1. PM: Are you sure you don’t want to make any more paperclips Y/N? A: Y.
Then “Y” is clearly a suboptimal action from the paperclip making perspective. Contrast:
PM: Are you sure you don’t want me to wirehead you to avoid the penalty Y/N? A: Y.
Now, these two examples seem a bit silly; if you want, we could discuss it more, and try and refine what is different about it. But my main two arguments are:
Any suboptimal policy, if we look at it in a granular enough way (or replace it with an equivalent policy/environment, and look at that in granular enough way) will include individual actions that are suboptimal (eg not budgeting more energy for the paperclip machine than is needed to make one paperclip).
In consequence, IV does not distinguish between wireheading and other limited-impact not-completely-optimal policies.
Would you like to Skype or PM to resolve this issue?
Sure, let’s do that!