Suppose you want to test a program whose input variables are distributed normally. You can write a big complicated equation to sample at uniform intervals from the cumulative distribution function for the gaussian distribution. Or you can say “x = mean; for i=1 to 10 { x += rnd(2)-1 }”.
Yes, I understand you can use randomness as an approximate substitute for actually understanding the implications of your probability distributions. That does not really address my point, the randomness does not grant you access to a search space you could not otherwise explore.
Very often, the only data you know about your space is randomly-sampled data. So you look at that randomly-sampled data, and come up with some simple random model that would generate data with similar properties.
If you analyze randomly-sampled data by considering the probability distribution of results for a random sampling, instead for the specific sampling you actually used, you are vulnerable to the mistake described here.
The nature of the statistics you’ve gathered, such as the mean, variance, and correlations between observed variables, make it very hard to construct a deterministic model that would reproduce those statistics, but very easy to build a random model that does.
You can deterministically build a model that accounts for your uncertainty. Having a probability distribution is not the same thing as randomly choosing results from that distribution.
And railing against all use of randomness in the simulation or study of complex processes just puts a big sticker on your head that says “I have no experience with what I’m talking about!”
First of all, I am not “railing against all use of randomness in the simulation or study of complex processes”. I am objecting to your claim that “randomness is required” in an epistemilogical process. Second, you should not presume to warn me about stickers on my head.
I hope you realize that my comment that you originally responded to was not claiming that randomness has some magical power.
You should realize that “randomness is required” does sound very much like “claiming that randomness has some magical power”, and if you mispoke, the correct response to the objection would be to admit that you made a mistake and apologize for the miscommunication, not to try to defend the wrong claim.
According to which utility function?
According to the utility function that your current utility function doesn’t like, but that you will be delighted with once you try it out.
It appears that you don’t understand the purpose of utility functions. I do not want to have a utility function U that maximizes U(U), that assigns to itself higher utility than any other utility function assigns to itself. I want to achieve states of the world that maximize my current utility function.
You should realize that “randomness is required” does sound very much like “claiming that randomness has some magical power”, and if you mispoke, the correct response to the objection would be to admit that you made a mistake and apologize for the miscommunication, not to try to defend the wrong claim.
You mean, for instance, by saying,
Okay, you don’t actually need randomness, if you can work out a way of doing a methodical variation of all possible parameters.
I’m not defending the previous wrong claim about “needing randomness”. I’m arguing against your wrong claim, which appears to be that one should never use randomness in your models.
It appears that you don’t understand the purpose of utility functions. I do not want to have a utility function U that maximizes U(U), that assigns to itself higher utility than any other utility function assigns to itself. I want to achieve states of the world that maximize my current utility function.
It appears that you still don’t understand what my basic point is. You can’t improve your utility function by a search using your utility function. We have better utility functions than trilobites did. We could not have found them using trilobite utility functions. Trilobite CEV would, if performing optimally, have ruled them out. Extrapolate.
Okay, you don’t actually need randomness, if you can work out a way of doing a methodical variation of all possible parameters.
Wow, you are actually compounding the rudeness of abusing the edit feature to completely rewrite your comment by then analyzing my response to the original version as if it were responding to the edited version.
I’m arguing against your wrong claim, which appears to be that one should never use randomness in your models.
How did you get from “randomness is never required” to “randomness is never useful”? I acknowledge that sometimes randomness can be a good enough approximate substitute for the much harder strategy of actually understanding the implications of a probability distribution.
It appears that you still don’t understand what the argument we’re having is about.
I understand your argument. It is wrong. You have not actually responded to my objection. To refute my objection, you would have to explain why I should want to give up my current utility function U0 in favor of some other utility function U such that
(1) U(U) > U0(U0)
even though
(2) U0(U0) > U0(U)
Since U0 is my current utility function, and therefore (2) describes my current wants, you will not be able to convince me that I should be persuaded by (1), which is a meaningless comparison. Adopting U as my utility function does not help me maximize U0.
To the extent that trilobites can even be considered to have utility functions, my utility function is better than the trilobite utility function according to my values. The trilobites would disagree. An optimal human CEV would be a human SUCCESS and a trilobite FAIL. Likewise, an optimal trilobite CEV would be a trilobite SUCCESS and a human FAIL. There is no absolute universal utilility function that says one of these is better than the others. It is my human values that cause me to say that the human SUCCESS is better.
An optimal human CEV would be a human SUCCESS and a trilobite FAIL.
Unless, of course, it turns out that humans really like trilobites and would be willing to devote significant resources to keeping them alive, understanding their preferences, and carrying out those preferences (without compromising other human values). In that case, it’s mutual success.
I’m breaking this out into a separate reply, because it’s its own sub-thread:
If no utility function, and hence no world state, is objectively better than any other, then all utility functions are wireheading. Because the only distinction between wireheading, and not wireheading, is that the wirehead only cares about his/her own qualia, not about states of the world. If the only reason you care about states of the world is because of how your utility function evaluates them—that is to say, what qualia they generate in you—you are a wirehead.
If the only reason you care about states of the world is because of how your utility function evaluates them—that is to say, what qualia they generate in you—you are a wirehead.
You have it backwards. I do not care about things because of how my utility function evaluates them. Rather, my utility function evaluates things the way it does because of how I care about it. My utility function is a description of my preferences, not the source of them.
I don’t think the order of execution matters here. If there’s no objective preference over states of the world, then there’s no objective reason to prefer “not wireheading” (caring about states of the world) over “wireheading” (caring only about your percepts).
There is no “objective” reason to do anything. Knowing that, what are you going to do anyways? Myself, I am still going to things for my subjective reasons.
You appear to have an overexpansive definition of wireheading. Having an arbitrary utility function is not the same as wireheading. Wireheading is a very specific sort of alteration of utility functions that we (i.e. most humans, with our current, subjective utility functions, nearly universally) see as very dangerous, because it throws away what we currently care about. Wireheading is a “parochial” definition, not universal. But that’s OK.
What else can the utility function as implemented by your hardware depend on besides your qualia, and computations derived from your qualia?
Calling utility functions “wireheading” is a category error. Wireheading is either:
Directly acting on the machinery that implements one’s utility function to trivially satisfy this hardware, i.e. by directly injecting qualia rather than providing the qualia via what they are normally correlated with.
More broadly, altering one’s utility function to one that is trivial to broadly satisfy, such as by reinforcement via 1.
Calling utility functions “wireheading” is a category error.
If you read my original comment, it’s clear that I meant wireheading is having a utility function that depends only on your qualia. Or maybe “choosing to have”.
What else can the utility function as implemented by your hardware depend on besides your qualia, and computations derived from your qualia?
Huh? So you think there’s nothing inside your head except qualia?
Beliefs aren’t qualia. Subconscious information isn’t qualia.
Directly acting on the machinery that implements one’s utility function to trivially satisfy this hardware, i.e. by directly injecting qualia rather than providing the qualia via what they are normally correlated with.
This sounds like a potentially good definition. But I’m unclear then why anyone using utility theory, and that definition, would object to wireheading. If you’ve got a utility function, and you can satisfy it, that’s the thing to do, right? Why does it matter how you satisfy it? You seem to be saying that the hardware implementation isn’t your real utility function, it’s just an implementation of it. As if the utility function stood somewhere outside you.
Huh? So you think there’s nothing inside your head except qualia?
Beliefs aren’t qualia. Subconscious information isn’t qualia.
Beliefs and subconcious information are derived from qualia and the information about the external world that they correlate with, no?
Utility functions are a convenient mathematical description to describe preferences of entities in game theory and some decision theories, when these preferences are consistent. It’s useful as a metaphor for “what we want”, but when used loosely like this, there are troubles.
As applied to humans, this flat-out doesn’t work. Empirically and as a general rule, we’re not consistent, and most of us can readily be money-pumped. We do not have a nice clean module that weighs outcomes and assigns real numbers to them. Nor do we feed outcome weights into a probability weighting module, and then choose the maximum utility. Our values change on reflection. Heck, we’re not even unitary entities. Our consciousness is multi-faceted. There are the left and right brains communicating and negotiating through the corpus callosum. The information immediately accessible to the consciousness, what we identify with, is rather different than the information our subconscious uses. We are a gigantic hack of an intelligence built upon the shifting sands of stimulus-response and reinforcement conditioning. These joints in our selves make it easier to wirehead, and essentially kill our current selves, leaving only animal-level instincts, if that.
But I’m unclear then why anyone using utility theory, and that definition, would object to wireheading. If you’ve got a utility function, and you can satisfy it, that’s the thing to do, right? Why does it matter how you satisfy it? You seem to be saying that the hardware implementation isn’t your real utility function, it’s just an implementation of it. As if the utility function stood somewhere outside you.
There are multiple utility functions running around here. The basic point was that what I consider important now matters to what choices I make now. The fact that I can make the future me have a new utility function, satisfied by wireheading, does not register positively on my current utility function. In fact, because it throws away almost everything I now care about, I am unlikely to do it now. My goals are “satisfy my current utility function”, and are always that, because that’s what we mean by the abstraction of utility function. My goals are not to satisfy what preferences I may later have. My goals are not to change my preferences to be easier to satisfy, because that means my current goals are less likely to be satisfied. If my goals change, than they will have changed, and only then will I choose differently. It’s not that my utility function stands outside of me: my utility function is part of me. Changing it changes me. It so happens that my utility function would be easily changed if I started directly stimulating my reward center. The reward center is not my utility function, though it is part of the implementation of my decision function (which if it were coherent, could be summarized in a utility function, and sets of probabilities). If we wish to identify the reward circuitry of my brain with a utility function, we’ve also got to put a few other utility functions in, and entities having these utility functions that are in a non-zero sum game with the reward circuitry.
Beliefs and subconcious information are derived from qualia and the information about the external world that they correlate with, no?
Not as far as I know, no. You may be equating “qualia” with “percepts”. That’s not right.
The fact that I can make the future me have a new utility function, satisfied by wireheading, does not register positively on my current utility function. In fact, because it throws away almost everything I now care about, I am unlikely to do it now. My goals are “satisfy my current utility function”, and are always that, because that’s what we mean by the abstraction of utility function. My goals are not to satisfy what preferences I may later have.
If that analysis were correct, there would be no difficulty about wireheading. It would simply be an error.
There is a difficulty about wireheading, and I’m trying to talk about it. I’m looking at static situations: Is there something objectively wrong with a person plugged into themselves giving themselves orgasms forever?
The LW community has a consensus that there is something wrong with that. Yet they also have a consensus that there are no objective values. These are inconsistent.
You’re trying to say that wireheading is an error not because the final wirehead state reached is wrong, but because the path from here to there involved an error. That’s not a valid objection, for the reasons you gave in your comment: Humans are messy, and random variation is a natural part of the human hardware and software. And humans have been messy for some time. So if you can become a wirehead by a simple error, many people must already have made that error. And CEV has to incorporate their wirehead preferences equally with everyone else’s.
There’s something inconsistent about saying that human values are good, but the process generating those values is bad.
Not as far as I know, no. You may be equating “qualia” with “percepts”. That’s not right.
Well, I’m still not convinced there is a useful difference, though I see why philosophers would separate the concepts.
There is a difficulty about wireheading, and I’m trying to talk about it. I’m looking at static situations: Is there something objectively wrong with a person plugged into themselves giving themselves orgasms forever?
There is nothing objectively wrong with that, no.
The LW community has a consensus that there is something wrong with that. Yet they also have a consensus that there are no objective values. These are inconsistent.
The LW community has a consensus that there is something wrong with that judged by our current parochial values that we want to maintain. Not objectively wrong, but widely held inter-subjective agreement that lets us cooperate in trying to steer the future away from a course where everyone gets wireheaded.
You’re trying to say that wireheading is an error not because the final wirehead state reached is wrong,
No, I’m saying that the final state is wrong according to my current values. That’s what I mean by wrong: against my current values. Because it is wrong, any path reaching it must have an error in it somewhere.
And humans have been messy for some time. So if you can become a wirehead by a simple error, many people must already have made that error.
We haven’t had the technology to truly wirehead until quite recently, though various addictions can be approximations.
many people must already have made that error. And CEV has to incorporate their wirehead preferences equally with everyone else’s.
Currently, there’s not enough wireheads, or addicts for that matter, to make much of a difference. Those that are wireheads want nothing more than to be wireheads, so I’m not sure that they would effect anything else under CEV. That’s one of the horrors of wireheading—all other values become lost. What we would have to worry about is a proselytizing wirehead, who wishes everyone else would convert. That seems an even harder end-state to reach than a simple wirehead.
Personally, I don’t want CEV applied to the whole human race. I think large swathes of the human race hold values that conflict badly with mine, and still would after perfect reflection. Wireheads would just be a small subset of that.
Personally, I don’t want CEV applied to the whole human race. I think large swathes of the human race hold values that conflict badly with mine, and still would after perfect reflection. Wireheads would just be a small subset of that.
One of my intuitions about about human value is that it is highly diverse, and any extrapolation will be unable to find consensus / coherence in the way desired by CEV. As such, I’ve always thought that the most likely outcome of augmenting human value through the means of successful FAI would be highly diverse subpopulations all continuing to diverge, with a sort of evolutionary pressure for who receives the most resources. Wireheads should be easy to contain under such a scenario, and would leave expansion to the more active groups.
We haven’t had the technology to truly wirehead until quite recently, though various addictions can be approximations.
I was reverting to my meaning of “wireheading”. Sorry about that.
Personally, I don’t want CEV applied to the whole human race. I think large swathes of the human race hold values that conflict badly with mine, and still would after perfect reflection. Wireheads would just be a small subset of that.
We agree on that.
I think one problem with CEV is that, to buy into CEV, you have to buy into this idea you’re pushing that values are completely subjective. This brings up the question of why anyone implementing CEV would want to include anybody else in the subset whose values are being extrapolated. That would be an error.
You could argue that it’s purely pragmatic—the CEVer needs to compromise with the rest of the world to avoid being crushed like a bug. But, hey, the CEVer has an AI on its side.
You could argue that the CEVer’s values include wanting to make other people happy, and believes it can do this by incorporating their values. There are 2 problems with this:
They would be sacrificing a near-infinite expected utility from propagating their values over all time and space, for a relatively infinitessimal one-time gain of happiness on the part of those currently alive here on Earth. So these have to be CEVers with high discounting of the future. Which makes me wonder why they’re interested in CEV.
Choosing the subset of people who manage to develop a friendly AI and set up CEV strongly selects for people who have the perpetuation of values as their dominant value. If someone claims that he will incorporate other peoples’ values in his CEV at the expense of perpetuating his own values because he’s a nice guy, you should expect that he has to date put more effort into being a nice guy than into CEV.
If you’ve got a utility function, and you can satisfy it, that’s the thing to do, right? Why does it matter how you satisfy it? You seem to be saying that the hardware implementation isn’t your real utility function, it’s just an implementation of it. As if the utility function stood somewhere outside you.
I think I see your point: a wireheading utility function would value (1) for providing the reward with less effort, while a nonwireheading utility function would disvalue (1) for providing the reward without the desideratum.
If you think that the notion of “qualia” requires them to be causally isolated from the universe (which is my guess at why you even bring the idea up), then the burden is on you to explain why everyone who discusses consciousness except Daniel Dennett is silly.
In that case, nothing can be said to depend only on the qualia, because anything that depends on them is also indirectly influenced by whatever the qualia themselves depend on.
Are there any independent variables in the real world? Variables are “independent” given a particular analysis.
When you say a function depends only on a set of variables, you mean that you can compute the function given the value of those variables. It doesn’t matter whether those variables are dependent on other variables.
Wow, you are actually compounding the rudeness of abusing the edit feature to completely rewrite your comment by then analyzing my response to the original version as if it were responding to the edited version.
No. That statement is three comments above the comment in which you said I should acknowledge my error. It was already there when you wrote that comment. And I also acknowledged my misstatement in the comment you were replying to, and elaborated on what I had meant when I made the comment.
I acknowledge that sometimes randomness can be a good enough approximate substitute for the much harder strategy of actually understanding the implications of a probability distribution.
Good! We agree.
Since U0 is my current utility function, and therefore (2) describes my current wants, you will not be able to convince me that I should be persuaded by (1), which is a meaningless comparison. Adopting U as my utility function does not help me maximize U0.
Good! We agree again.
To the extent that trilobites can even be considered to have utility functions, my utility function is better than the trilobite utility function according to my values. The trilobites would disagree.
And we agree yet again!
Likewise, an optimal trilobite CEV would be a trilobite SUCCESS and a human FAIL. There is no absolute universal utilility function that says one of these is better than the others. It is my human values that cause me to say that the human SUCCESS is better.
And here is where we part ways.
Maybe there is no universal utility function. That’s a… I won’t say it’s a reasonable position, but I understand its appeal. I would call it an over-reasoned position, like when a philosopher announces that he has proved that he doesn’t exist. It’s time to go back to the drawing board when you come up with that conclusion. Or at least to take your own advice, and stop trying to change the world when you’ve already said it doesn’t matter how it changes.
But to believe that your utility function is nothing special, and still try to take over the universe and force your utility function on it for all time, is insane.
(Yes, yes, I know Eliezer has all sorts of disclaimers in the CEV document about how CEV should not try to take over the universe. I don’t believe that it’s logically possible; and I believe that his discussions of Friendly AI make it even clearer that his plans require complete control. Perhaps the theory is still vague enough that just maybe there’s a way around this; but I believe the burden of proof is on those who say there is a way around it.)
It would be consistent with the theory of utility functions if, in promoting CEV, you were acting on an inner drive that said, “Ooh, baby, I’m ensuring the survival of my utility function. Oh, God, yes! Yes! YES!” But that’s not what I see. I see people scribbling equations, studying the answers, and saying, “Hmm, it appears that my utility function is directing me to propagate itself. Oh, dear, I suppose I must, then.”
That’s just faking your utility function.
I think it’s key that the people I’m speaking of who believe utility functions are arbitrary, also believe they have no free will. And it’s probably also key that they assume their utility function must assign value to its own reproduction. They then use these two beliefs as an excuse to justify not following through on their belief about the arbitrariness of their utility function, because they think to do so would be logically impossible. “We can’t help ourselves! Our utility functions made us do it!” I don’t have a clean analysis, but there’s something circular, something wrong with this picture.
No. That statement is three comments above the comment in which you said I should acknowledge my error.
Let’s recap. You made a wrong claim. I responded to the wrong claim. You disputed my response. I refuted your disputation. You attempted to defend your claim. I responded to your defense. You edited your defense by replacing it with the acknowledgment of your mistake. You responded to my response still sort of defending your wrong claim, and attacking me for refuting your wrong claim. I defended my refutation, pointing out the you really did make the wrong claim and continued to defend it. And now you attack my defense, claiming that you did in fact acknowledge your mistake, and this should somehow negate your continued defense after the acknowledgement. Do you see how you are wrong here? When you acknowledge your claim is wrong, you should not at the same time criticize me for refuting your point.
But to believe that your utility function is nothing special, and still try to take over the universe and force your utility function on it for all time, is insane.
I do believe my utility function is special. I don’t expect the universe (outside of me, my fellow humans, and any optimizing processes we spawn off) to agree with me. But, like Eliezer says, “We’ll see which one of us is still standing when this is over.”
Let’s recap. You made a wrong claim. I responded to the wrong claim. You disputed my response. I refuted your disputation. You attempted to defend your claim. I responded to your defense. You edited your defense by replacing it with the acknowledgment of your mistake.
No, that isn’t what happened. I’m not sure which comment the last sentence is supposed to refer to, but I’m p > .8 it didn’t happen that way. If it’s referring to the statement, “Okay, you don’t actually need randomness,” I wrote that before I ever saw your first response to that comment. But that doesn’t match up with what you just described; there weren’t that many exchanges before that comment. It also doesn’t match up with anything after that comment, since I still don’t acknowledge any such mistake made after that comment.
When you acknowledge your claim is wrong, you should not at the same time criticize me for refuting your point.
We’re talking about 2 separate claims. The wrong claim that I made was in an early statement where I said that you “needed randomness” to explore the space of possible utility functions. The right claim that I made, at length, was that randomness is a useful tool. You are conflating my defense of that claim, with defending the initial wrong claim. You’ve also said that you agree that randomness is a useful tool, which suggests that what is happening is that you made a whole series of comments that I say were attacking claim 2, and that you believe were attacking claim 1.
I’m not planning to tile the universe with myself, I just want myself or something closely isomorphic to me to continue to exist. The two most obvious ways to ensure my own continued existence are avoidance of things that would destroy me, particularly intelligent agents which could devote significant resources to destroying me personally, and making redundant copies. My own ability to copy myself is limited, and an imperfect copy might compete with me for the same scarce resources, so option two is curtailed by option one. Actual destruction of enemies is just an extension of avoidance; that which no longer exists within my light-cone can no longer pose a threat.
Your characterization of my utility function as arbitrary is, itself, arbitrary. Deal with it.
Yes, I understand you can use randomness as an approximate substitute for actually understanding the implications of your probability distributions. That does not really address my point, the randomness does not grant you access to a search space you could not otherwise explore.
If you analyze randomly-sampled data by considering the probability distribution of results for a random sampling, instead for the specific sampling you actually used, you are vulnerable to the mistake described here.
You can deterministically build a model that accounts for your uncertainty. Having a probability distribution is not the same thing as randomly choosing results from that distribution.
First of all, I am not “railing against all use of randomness in the simulation or study of complex processes”. I am objecting to your claim that “randomness is required” in an epistemilogical process. Second, you should not presume to warn me about stickers on my head.
You should realize that “randomness is required” does sound very much like “claiming that randomness has some magical power”, and if you mispoke, the correct response to the objection would be to admit that you made a mistake and apologize for the miscommunication, not to try to defend the wrong claim.
It appears that you don’t understand the purpose of utility functions. I do not want to have a utility function U that maximizes U(U), that assigns to itself higher utility than any other utility function assigns to itself. I want to achieve states of the world that maximize my current utility function.
You mean, for instance, by saying,
I’m not defending the previous wrong claim about “needing randomness”. I’m arguing against your wrong claim, which appears to be that one should never use randomness in your models.
It appears that you still don’t understand what my basic point is. You can’t improve your utility function by a search using your utility function. We have better utility functions than trilobites did. We could not have found them using trilobite utility functions. Trilobite CEV would, if performing optimally, have ruled them out. Extrapolate.
Wow, you are actually compounding the rudeness of abusing the edit feature to completely rewrite your comment by then analyzing my response to the original version as if it were responding to the edited version.
How did you get from “randomness is never required” to “randomness is never useful”? I acknowledge that sometimes randomness can be a good enough approximate substitute for the much harder strategy of actually understanding the implications of a probability distribution.
I understand your argument. It is wrong. You have not actually responded to my objection. To refute my objection, you would have to explain why I should want to give up my current utility function U0 in favor of some other utility function U such that
even though
Since U0 is my current utility function, and therefore (2) describes my current wants, you will not be able to convince me that I should be persuaded by (1), which is a meaningless comparison. Adopting U as my utility function does not help me maximize U0.
To the extent that trilobites can even be considered to have utility functions, my utility function is better than the trilobite utility function according to my values. The trilobites would disagree. An optimal human CEV would be a human SUCCESS and a trilobite FAIL. Likewise, an optimal trilobite CEV would be a trilobite SUCCESS and a human FAIL. There is no absolute universal utilility function that says one of these is better than the others. It is my human values that cause me to say that the human SUCCESS is better.
Unless, of course, it turns out that humans really like trilobites and would be willing to devote significant resources to keeping them alive, understanding their preferences, and carrying out those preferences (without compromising other human values). In that case, it’s mutual success.
You’re thinking of tribbles.
Tribbles, while cute, directly compete with humans for food. In the long view, trilobites might have an easier time finding their niche.
I’m breaking this out into a separate reply, because it’s its own sub-thread:
If no utility function, and hence no world state, is objectively better than any other, then all utility functions are wireheading. Because the only distinction between wireheading, and not wireheading, is that the wirehead only cares about his/her own qualia, not about states of the world. If the only reason you care about states of the world is because of how your utility function evaluates them—that is to say, what qualia they generate in you—you are a wirehead.
You have it backwards. I do not care about things because of how my utility function evaluates them. Rather, my utility function evaluates things the way it does because of how I care about it. My utility function is a description of my preferences, not the source of them.
I don’t think the order of execution matters here. If there’s no objective preference over states of the world, then there’s no objective reason to prefer “not wireheading” (caring about states of the world) over “wireheading” (caring only about your percepts).
There is no “objective” reason to do anything. Knowing that, what are you going to do anyways? Myself, I am still going to things for my subjective reasons.
Okay; but then don’t diss wireheading.
You appear to have an overexpansive definition of wireheading. Having an arbitrary utility function is not the same as wireheading. Wireheading is a very specific sort of alteration of utility functions that we (i.e. most humans, with our current, subjective utility functions, nearly universally) see as very dangerous, because it throws away what we currently care about. Wireheading is a “parochial” definition, not universal. But that’s OK.
What’s your definition of wireheading?
I didn’t define it as having an arbitrary utility function. I defined it as a utility function that depends only on your qualia.
What else can the utility function as implemented by your hardware depend on besides your qualia, and computations derived from your qualia?
Calling utility functions “wireheading” is a category error. Wireheading is either:
Directly acting on the machinery that implements one’s utility function to trivially satisfy this hardware, i.e. by directly injecting qualia rather than providing the qualia via what they are normally correlated with.
More broadly, altering one’s utility function to one that is trivial to broadly satisfy, such as by reinforcement via 1.
If you read my original comment, it’s clear that I meant wireheading is having a utility function that depends only on your qualia. Or maybe “choosing to have”.
Huh? So you think there’s nothing inside your head except qualia?
Beliefs aren’t qualia. Subconscious information isn’t qualia.
This sounds like a potentially good definition. But I’m unclear then why anyone using utility theory, and that definition, would object to wireheading. If you’ve got a utility function, and you can satisfy it, that’s the thing to do, right? Why does it matter how you satisfy it? You seem to be saying that the hardware implementation isn’t your real utility function, it’s just an implementation of it. As if the utility function stood somewhere outside you.
Beliefs and subconcious information are derived from qualia and the information about the external world that they correlate with, no?
Utility functions are a convenient mathematical description to describe preferences of entities in game theory and some decision theories, when these preferences are consistent. It’s useful as a metaphor for “what we want”, but when used loosely like this, there are troubles.
As applied to humans, this flat-out doesn’t work. Empirically and as a general rule, we’re not consistent, and most of us can readily be money-pumped. We do not have a nice clean module that weighs outcomes and assigns real numbers to them. Nor do we feed outcome weights into a probability weighting module, and then choose the maximum utility. Our values change on reflection. Heck, we’re not even unitary entities. Our consciousness is multi-faceted. There are the left and right brains communicating and negotiating through the corpus callosum. The information immediately accessible to the consciousness, what we identify with, is rather different than the information our subconscious uses. We are a gigantic hack of an intelligence built upon the shifting sands of stimulus-response and reinforcement conditioning. These joints in our selves make it easier to wirehead, and essentially kill our current selves, leaving only animal-level instincts, if that.
There are multiple utility functions running around here. The basic point was that what I consider important now matters to what choices I make now. The fact that I can make the future me have a new utility function, satisfied by wireheading, does not register positively on my current utility function. In fact, because it throws away almost everything I now care about, I am unlikely to do it now. My goals are “satisfy my current utility function”, and are always that, because that’s what we mean by the abstraction of utility function. My goals are not to satisfy what preferences I may later have. My goals are not to change my preferences to be easier to satisfy, because that means my current goals are less likely to be satisfied. If my goals change, than they will have changed, and only then will I choose differently. It’s not that my utility function stands outside of me: my utility function is part of me. Changing it changes me. It so happens that my utility function would be easily changed if I started directly stimulating my reward center. The reward center is not my utility function, though it is part of the implementation of my decision function (which if it were coherent, could be summarized in a utility function, and sets of probabilities). If we wish to identify the reward circuitry of my brain with a utility function, we’ve also got to put a few other utility functions in, and entities having these utility functions that are in a non-zero sum game with the reward circuitry.
Not as far as I know, no. You may be equating “qualia” with “percepts”. That’s not right.
If that analysis were correct, there would be no difficulty about wireheading. It would simply be an error.
There is a difficulty about wireheading, and I’m trying to talk about it. I’m looking at static situations: Is there something objectively wrong with a person plugged into themselves giving themselves orgasms forever?
The LW community has a consensus that there is something wrong with that. Yet they also have a consensus that there are no objective values. These are inconsistent.
You’re trying to say that wireheading is an error not because the final wirehead state reached is wrong, but because the path from here to there involved an error. That’s not a valid objection, for the reasons you gave in your comment: Humans are messy, and random variation is a natural part of the human hardware and software. And humans have been messy for some time. So if you can become a wirehead by a simple error, many people must already have made that error. And CEV has to incorporate their wirehead preferences equally with everyone else’s.
There’s something inconsistent about saying that human values are good, but the process generating those values is bad.
Well, I’m still not convinced there is a useful difference, though I see why philosophers would separate the concepts.
There is nothing objectively wrong with that, no.
The LW community has a consensus that there is something wrong with that judged by our current parochial values that we want to maintain. Not objectively wrong, but widely held inter-subjective agreement that lets us cooperate in trying to steer the future away from a course where everyone gets wireheaded.
No, I’m saying that the final state is wrong according to my current values. That’s what I mean by wrong: against my current values. Because it is wrong, any path reaching it must have an error in it somewhere.
We haven’t had the technology to truly wirehead until quite recently, though various addictions can be approximations.
Currently, there’s not enough wireheads, or addicts for that matter, to make much of a difference. Those that are wireheads want nothing more than to be wireheads, so I’m not sure that they would effect anything else under CEV. That’s one of the horrors of wireheading—all other values become lost. What we would have to worry about is a proselytizing wirehead, who wishes everyone else would convert. That seems an even harder end-state to reach than a simple wirehead.
Personally, I don’t want CEV applied to the whole human race. I think large swathes of the human race hold values that conflict badly with mine, and still would after perfect reflection. Wireheads would just be a small subset of that.
One of my intuitions about about human value is that it is highly diverse, and any extrapolation will be unable to find consensus / coherence in the way desired by CEV. As such, I’ve always thought that the most likely outcome of augmenting human value through the means of successful FAI would be highly diverse subpopulations all continuing to diverge, with a sort of evolutionary pressure for who receives the most resources. Wireheads should be easy to contain under such a scenario, and would leave expansion to the more active groups.
I was reverting to my meaning of “wireheading”. Sorry about that.
We agree on that.
I think one problem with CEV is that, to buy into CEV, you have to buy into this idea you’re pushing that values are completely subjective. This brings up the question of why anyone implementing CEV would want to include anybody else in the subset whose values are being extrapolated. That would be an error.
You could argue that it’s purely pragmatic—the CEVer needs to compromise with the rest of the world to avoid being crushed like a bug. But, hey, the CEVer has an AI on its side.
You could argue that the CEVer’s values include wanting to make other people happy, and believes it can do this by incorporating their values. There are 2 problems with this:
They would be sacrificing a near-infinite expected utility from propagating their values over all time and space, for a relatively infinitessimal one-time gain of happiness on the part of those currently alive here on Earth. So these have to be CEVers with high discounting of the future. Which makes me wonder why they’re interested in CEV.
Choosing the subset of people who manage to develop a friendly AI and set up CEV strongly selects for people who have the perpetuation of values as their dominant value. If someone claims that he will incorporate other peoples’ values in his CEV at the expense of perpetuating his own values because he’s a nice guy, you should expect that he has to date put more effort into being a nice guy than into CEV.
I think I see your point: a wireheading utility function would value (1) for providing the reward with less effort, while a nonwireheading utility function would disvalue (1) for providing the reward without the desideratum.
You should define ‘qualia,’ then, in such a way that makes it clear how they’re causally isolated from the rest of the universe.
I didn’t say they were causally isolated.
If you think that the notion of “qualia” requires them to be causally isolated from the universe (which is my guess at why you even bring the idea up), then the burden is on you to explain why everyone who discusses consciousness except Daniel Dennett is silly.
In that case, nothing can be said to depend only on the qualia, because anything that depends on them is also indirectly influenced by whatever the qualia themselves depend on.
When you say a function depends only on a set of variables, you mean that you can compute the function given the value of those variables.
Emotional responses aren’t independent variables, they’re functions of past and present sensory input.
Are there any independent variables in the real world? Variables are “independent” given a particular analysis.
When you say a function depends only on a set of variables, you mean that you can compute the function given the value of those variables. It doesn’t matter whether those variables are dependent on other variables.
No. That statement is three comments above the comment in which you said I should acknowledge my error. It was already there when you wrote that comment. And I also acknowledged my misstatement in the comment you were replying to, and elaborated on what I had meant when I made the comment.
Good! We agree.
Good! We agree again.
And we agree yet again!
And here is where we part ways.
Maybe there is no universal utility function. That’s a… I won’t say it’s a reasonable position, but I understand its appeal. I would call it an over-reasoned position, like when a philosopher announces that he has proved that he doesn’t exist. It’s time to go back to the drawing board when you come up with that conclusion. Or at least to take your own advice, and stop trying to change the world when you’ve already said it doesn’t matter how it changes.
But to believe that your utility function is nothing special, and still try to take over the universe and force your utility function on it for all time, is insane.
(Yes, yes, I know Eliezer has all sorts of disclaimers in the CEV document about how CEV should not try to take over the universe. I don’t believe that it’s logically possible; and I believe that his discussions of Friendly AI make it even clearer that his plans require complete control. Perhaps the theory is still vague enough that just maybe there’s a way around this; but I believe the burden of proof is on those who say there is a way around it.)
It would be consistent with the theory of utility functions if, in promoting CEV, you were acting on an inner drive that said, “Ooh, baby, I’m ensuring the survival of my utility function. Oh, God, yes! Yes! YES!” But that’s not what I see. I see people scribbling equations, studying the answers, and saying, “Hmm, it appears that my utility function is directing me to propagate itself. Oh, dear, I suppose I must, then.”
That’s just faking your utility function.
I think it’s key that the people I’m speaking of who believe utility functions are arbitrary, also believe they have no free will. And it’s probably also key that they assume their utility function must assign value to its own reproduction. They then use these two beliefs as an excuse to justify not following through on their belief about the arbitrariness of their utility function, because they think to do so would be logically impossible. “We can’t help ourselves! Our utility functions made us do it!” I don’t have a clean analysis, but there’s something circular, something wrong with this picture.
Let’s recap. You made a wrong claim. I responded to the wrong claim. You disputed my response. I refuted your disputation. You attempted to defend your claim. I responded to your defense. You edited your defense by replacing it with the acknowledgment of your mistake. You responded to my response still sort of defending your wrong claim, and attacking me for refuting your wrong claim. I defended my refutation, pointing out the you really did make the wrong claim and continued to defend it. And now you attack my defense, claiming that you did in fact acknowledge your mistake, and this should somehow negate your continued defense after the acknowledgement. Do you see how you are wrong here? When you acknowledge your claim is wrong, you should not at the same time criticize me for refuting your point.
I do believe my utility function is special. I don’t expect the universe (outside of me, my fellow humans, and any optimizing processes we spawn off) to agree with me. But, like Eliezer says, “We’ll see which one of us is still standing when this is over.”
No, that isn’t what happened. I’m not sure which comment the last sentence is supposed to refer to, but I’m p > .8 it didn’t happen that way. If it’s referring to the statement, “Okay, you don’t actually need randomness,” I wrote that before I ever saw your first response to that comment. But that doesn’t match up with what you just described; there weren’t that many exchanges before that comment. It also doesn’t match up with anything after that comment, since I still don’t acknowledge any such mistake made after that comment.
We’re talking about 2 separate claims. The wrong claim that I made was in an early statement where I said that you “needed randomness” to explore the space of possible utility functions. The right claim that I made, at length, was that randomness is a useful tool. You are conflating my defense of that claim, with defending the initial wrong claim. You’ve also said that you agree that randomness is a useful tool, which suggests that what is happening is that you made a whole series of comments that I say were attacking claim 2, and that you believe were attacking claim 1.
I’m not planning to tile the universe with myself, I just want myself or something closely isomorphic to me to continue to exist. The two most obvious ways to ensure my own continued existence are avoidance of things that would destroy me, particularly intelligent agents which could devote significant resources to destroying me personally, and making redundant copies. My own ability to copy myself is limited, and an imperfect copy might compete with me for the same scarce resources, so option two is curtailed by option one. Actual destruction of enemies is just an extension of avoidance; that which no longer exists within my light-cone can no longer pose a threat.
Your characterization of my utility function as arbitrary is, itself, arbitrary. Deal with it.