I gather your point is that you get a FAI to check out Clippy, and give a go/no-go decision, and then destroy itself. Not much point in doing that, you could just run the FAI and ignore Clippy, and someone has to check that the FAI is in fact Friendly.
I gather your point is that you get a FAI to check out Clippy, and give a go/no-go decision, and then destroy itself. Not much point in doing that, you could just run the FAI and ignore Clippy, and someone has to check that the FAI is in fact Friendly.
No, that which is required to verify friendliness is less than an FAI. As I said earlier, what is probably the hard part is already done so the circumstance in which it is worth using Clippy rather than finishing off a goal-stable self improving AGI with Friendliness is unlikely. Nevertheless it exists, particularly if the implementation of the AGI is harder than I expect.
No, that which is required to verify friendliness is less than an FAI.
Do you have a pointer to a proposed procedure for that?
I’d expect implementing Friendliness to be easier than verifying Friendliness, since just about every interesting function of Turing machines is equivalent to the halting problem, and verifying Friendliness is an interesting function of a Turing machine. If you put heavy constraints on how Clippy’s code is structured, you might be able to verify Friendliness, but you didn’t mention that and Clippy didn’t offer to do that.
I’d expect implementing Friendliness to be easier than verifying Friendliness,
I’d rather like to verify that my AGI would be friendly before I run it. :) (Usually the label FAI seems to refer to AIs which will be ‘provably friendly’.)
You might be able to verify interesting properties of code that you constructed for the purpose of making verification possible, but you aren’t likely to be able to verify interesting properties of arbitrary hostile code like Clippy would have an incentive to produce.
You passed up an opportunity to point to your proposed verification procedure, so at this point I assume you don’t have one. Please prove me wrong.
Usually the label FAI seems to refer to AIs which will be ‘provably friendly’.
I don’t even know what the exact theorem to prove would be. Do you?
I gather your point is that you get a FAI to check out Clippy, and give a go/no-go decision, and then destroy itself. Not much point in doing that, you could just run the FAI and ignore Clippy, and someone has to check that the FAI is in fact Friendly.
No, that which is required to verify friendliness is less than an FAI. As I said earlier, what is probably the hard part is already done so the circumstance in which it is worth using Clippy rather than finishing off a goal-stable self improving AGI with Friendliness is unlikely. Nevertheless it exists, particularly if the implementation of the AGI is harder than I expect.
Do you have a pointer to a proposed procedure for that?
I’d expect implementing Friendliness to be easier than verifying Friendliness, since just about every interesting function of Turing machines is equivalent to the halting problem, and verifying Friendliness is an interesting function of a Turing machine. If you put heavy constraints on how Clippy’s code is structured, you might be able to verify Friendliness, but you didn’t mention that and Clippy didn’t offer to do that.
I’d rather like to verify that my AGI would be friendly before I run it. :) (Usually the label FAI seems to refer to AIs which will be ‘provably friendly’.)
You might be able to verify interesting properties of code that you constructed for the purpose of making verification possible, but you aren’t likely to be able to verify interesting properties of arbitrary hostile code like Clippy would have an incentive to produce.
You passed up an opportunity to point to your proposed verification procedure, so at this point I assume you don’t have one. Please prove me wrong.
I don’t even know what the exact theorem to prove would be. Do you?