As general feed back: On Less Wrong we actually tend to have pretty thick skins, so it doesn’t bother me too much when you call me stupid. It only makes you look bad. Furthermore, we are uniquely unimpressed by appeals to authority around here. Isaac Newton did a tremendous amount of work in the occult. Despite Isaac Newton’s obviously superior intellect, I see no reason to drop what I’m doing and become an occultist. Likewise, I will defer to Nash on the particulars of abstract Game Theory, but see no strong reason to accept claims beyond his domain of expertise. I suggest you stop insulting people and stop ostentatiously worshiping John Nash, and I make this suggestion because it’s inhibiting your ability to communicate in general, not because it particularly effects me one way or the other.
You did not actually provide any arguments in your post except this line:
The currency itself defines what is economically correct. You are misunderstanding the nature of money and the problem it solves. The AI cannot do what you are saying because its not logical.
If the currency defines what is economically correct, and but does not perfectly capture human value, then human value will not be preserved when the AI tries to optimize for the parameter defined by the currency.
If there is any way of manipulating an objective function, an AI will try to do that in order to conserve resources while still maximizing its objectives. If there is any way of manipulating the currency—for example, hacking into whatever global database defines the value of the currency and literally changing the numbers—the AI will do that. This will almost always be easier for the AI, and the AI will have no inclination to follow the “spirit rather than the letter” of its programming.
As general feed back: On Less Wrong we actually tend to have pretty thick skins, so it doesn’t bother me too much when you call me stupid. It only makes you look bad.
Calling you stupid is a short cut. I know it doesn’t hurt you, and I don’t care if I look bad. I bring content that is truth.
Despite Isaac Newton’s obviously superior intellect, I see no reason to drop what I’m doing and become an occultist.
I know but the thing is that Newton was an alchemist too, and their famous endeavor is to effectively turn math into gold, which I am claiming has been achieved now. Also in Ideal Money Nash notes Newton pegged the pound to gold as/when he was master of the mint.
Likewise, I will defer to Nash on the particulars of abstract Game Theory, but see no strong reason to accept claims beyond his domain of expertise. I suggest you stop insulting people and stop ostentatiously worshiping John Nash, and I make this suggestion because it’s inhibiting your ability to communicate in general, not because it particularly effects me one way or the other.
People are insulting us, and I am not worshiping him just because I am pointing out his logic here is obviously infallible. And it is not intelligent to say you defer to him on game theory and not Ideal Money. His discovery was Ideal Money all along. The others proofs and insights are artifacts of him trying to express Ideal Money. Ideal Money is what he spent his whole life on. Its the big problem he solved and all his works is related and an expression of that.
If the currency defines what is economically correct, and but does not perfectly capture human value, then human value will not be preserved when the AI tries to optimize for the parameter defined by the currency.
I don’t know what you mean to say. In the future humans will get paid the most for contributing the most value to society (and at the same time pursing their own selfish interests). AI will do the same. The prices will tell us what to do. AI won’t corrupt that because its obviously optimal and it is smarter than us.
If there is any way of manipulating an objective function, an AI will try to do that in order to conserve resources while still maximizing its objectives. If there is any way of manipulating the currency—for example, hacking into whatever global database defines the value of the currency and literally changing the numbers—the AI will do that. This will almost always be easier for the AI, and the AI will have no inclination to follow the “spirit rather than the letter” of its programming.
No you cannot manipulate ideal money because its conceptual. You are being silly. Also when Nash was a kid he sent a letter to the NSA explaining a conjecture for unbreakeable encryption. AI can’t hack bitcoin. The encryptor always wins.
You are conflating at least four senses of the word “value” into one concept and then assuming that those four things are the same thing.
What we call “human value” is the actual, abstract, difficult-to-know set of things that human beings want, and the things that we don’t know that we want but we would want if we knew about them, and maybe even the things that we wouldn’t want but that we might be glad we had after we got them. Discovering the content of “human value” is an enormous, unsolved philosophical problem.
What you might call “economic value” is purely defined in terms of trades between agents and can only be grounded in relative comparison between commodities.
In your post you throw in a reference to “value to society”. Something might be very valuable to society but individuals fail to coordinate and pay for that thing. This is known as the tragedy of the commons.
Individual humans are known to value weird, idiosyncratic things. You might call these “individual values”. Perhaps it would be valuable to society for some person to be put to death, but this would be contrary to that person’s individual values.
“Value to society” is not identical to “value to an individual” is not identical to “economic value” is not identical to “human value”, and none of these are identical to “Ideal Currency value”. There is certainly no apparent reason why Ideal Currency would converge on “human value”, which is the one that I would say should be optimized. Swapping these various senses of the word in your rhetoric as though they are interchangeable is leading you to make large errors. Assuming that an AI will just get what you mean and know instinctively which definition you mean is crippling to your thesis.
As general feed back: On Less Wrong we actually tend to have pretty thick skins, so it doesn’t bother me too much when you call me stupid. It only makes you look bad. Furthermore, we are uniquely unimpressed by appeals to authority around here. Isaac Newton did a tremendous amount of work in the occult. Despite Isaac Newton’s obviously superior intellect, I see no reason to drop what I’m doing and become an occultist. Likewise, I will defer to Nash on the particulars of abstract Game Theory, but see no strong reason to accept claims beyond his domain of expertise. I suggest you stop insulting people and stop ostentatiously worshiping John Nash, and I make this suggestion because it’s inhibiting your ability to communicate in general, not because it particularly effects me one way or the other.
You did not actually provide any arguments in your post except this line:
If the currency defines what is economically correct, and but does not perfectly capture human value, then human value will not be preserved when the AI tries to optimize for the parameter defined by the currency.
If there is any way of manipulating an objective function, an AI will try to do that in order to conserve resources while still maximizing its objectives. If there is any way of manipulating the currency—for example, hacking into whatever global database defines the value of the currency and literally changing the numbers—the AI will do that. This will almost always be easier for the AI, and the AI will have no inclination to follow the “spirit rather than the letter” of its programming.
Calling you stupid is a short cut. I know it doesn’t hurt you, and I don’t care if I look bad. I bring content that is truth.
I know but the thing is that Newton was an alchemist too, and their famous endeavor is to effectively turn math into gold, which I am claiming has been achieved now. Also in Ideal Money Nash notes Newton pegged the pound to gold as/when he was master of the mint.
People are insulting us, and I am not worshiping him just because I am pointing out his logic here is obviously infallible. And it is not intelligent to say you defer to him on game theory and not Ideal Money. His discovery was Ideal Money all along. The others proofs and insights are artifacts of him trying to express Ideal Money. Ideal Money is what he spent his whole life on. Its the big problem he solved and all his works is related and an expression of that.
I don’t know what you mean to say. In the future humans will get paid the most for contributing the most value to society (and at the same time pursing their own selfish interests). AI will do the same. The prices will tell us what to do. AI won’t corrupt that because its obviously optimal and it is smarter than us.
No you cannot manipulate ideal money because its conceptual. You are being silly. Also when Nash was a kid he sent a letter to the NSA explaining a conjecture for unbreakeable encryption. AI can’t hack bitcoin. The encryptor always wins.
You are conflating at least four senses of the word “value” into one concept and then assuming that those four things are the same thing.
What we call “human value” is the actual, abstract, difficult-to-know set of things that human beings want, and the things that we don’t know that we want but we would want if we knew about them, and maybe even the things that we wouldn’t want but that we might be glad we had after we got them. Discovering the content of “human value” is an enormous, unsolved philosophical problem.
What you might call “economic value” is purely defined in terms of trades between agents and can only be grounded in relative comparison between commodities.
In your post you throw in a reference to “value to society”. Something might be very valuable to society but individuals fail to coordinate and pay for that thing. This is known as the tragedy of the commons.
Individual humans are known to value weird, idiosyncratic things. You might call these “individual values”. Perhaps it would be valuable to society for some person to be put to death, but this would be contrary to that person’s individual values.
“Value to society” is not identical to “value to an individual” is not identical to “economic value” is not identical to “human value”, and none of these are identical to “Ideal Currency value”. There is certainly no apparent reason why Ideal Currency would converge on “human value”, which is the one that I would say should be optimized. Swapping these various senses of the word in your rhetoric as though they are interchangeable is leading you to make large errors. Assuming that an AI will just get what you mean and know instinctively which definition you mean is crippling to your thesis.