No, there’s no particular reason to think an FAI would be better at learning than an UFAI analogue, at least not as far as I can see.
I believe you have this backwards—the OP is asking whether a FAI would be worse at learning than an UFAI, because of additional constraints on its improvement. If so:
then a non Friendly AI would eventually (possibly quite quickly) become smarter than any FAI built.
Of course one of the first actions of a FAI would be to prevent any UFAI from being built at all.
If the rate of learning of an AGI is t then is it correct to assume that the rate of learning of a FAI would be t+x where x > 0,
Which says the FAI is learning faster. But that would make more sense of the last paragraph.
I may have a habit of assuming that the more precise formulation of a statement is the intended/correct interpretation, which, while great in academia and with applied math, may not be optimal here.
Read “rate of learning” as “time it takes to learn 1 bit of information”
So UFAI can learn 1 bit in time T, but a FAI takes T+X
Or, at least, that’s how I read it, because the second paragraph makes it pretty clear that the author is discussing UFAI outpacing FAI. You could also just read it as a typo in the equation, but “accidentally miswrote the entire second paragraph” seems significantly less likely. Especially since “Won’t FAI learn faster and outpace UFAI” seems like a pretty low probability question to begin with...
Erm… hi, welcome to the debug stack for how I reached that conclusion. Hope it helps ^.^
I believe you have this backwards—the OP is asking whether a FAI would be worse at learning than an UFAI, because of additional constraints on its improvement. If so:
Of course one of the first actions of a FAI would be to prevent any UFAI from being built at all.
I assumed otherwise because of :
Which says the FAI is learning faster. But that would make more sense of the last paragraph.
I may have a habit of assuming that the more precise formulation of a statement is the intended/correct interpretation, which, while great in academia and with applied math, may not be optimal here.
Read “rate of learning” as “time it takes to learn 1 bit of information”
So UFAI can learn 1 bit in time T, but a FAI takes T+X
Or, at least, that’s how I read it, because the second paragraph makes it pretty clear that the author is discussing UFAI outpacing FAI. You could also just read it as a typo in the equation, but “accidentally miswrote the entire second paragraph” seems significantly less likely. Especially since “Won’t FAI learn faster and outpace UFAI” seems like a pretty low probability question to begin with...
Erm… hi, welcome to the debug stack for how I reached that conclusion. Hope it helps ^.^