Note: this is on balance a negative review of the post, at least least regarding the question of whether it should be included in a “Best of LessWrong 2018” compilation. I feel somewhat bad about writing it given that the author has already written a review that I regard as negative. That being said, I think that reviews of posts by people other than the author are important for readers looking to judge posts, since authors may well have distorted views of their own works.
The idea behind AUP, that ‘side effect avoidance’ should mean minimising changes in one’s ability to achieve arbitrary goals, seems very promising to me. I think the idea and its formulation in this post substantially moved forward the ‘impact regularisation’ line of research. This represents a change in opinion since I wrote this comment.
I think that this idea behind AUP has fairly obvious applications to human rationality and cooperation, although they aren’t spelled out in this post. This seems like a good candidate for follow-up work.
This post is very long, confusing to me in some sections, and contains a couple of English and mathematical typos.
I still believe that the formalism presented in this post has some flaws that make it not suitable for canonisation. For more detail, see my exchange in the descendents of this comment—I still mostly agree with my claims about the technical aspects of AUP as presented in this post. Fleshing out these details is also, in my opinion, a good candidate for follow-up work.
I think that the ideas behind AUP that I’m excited about are better communicated in other posts by TurnTrout.
I think that this idea behind AUP has fairly obvious applications to human rationality and cooperation, although they aren’t spelled out in this post. This seems like a good candidate for follow-up work.
I’m curious whether these are applications I’ve started to gesture at in Reframing Impact, or whether what you have in mind as obvious isn’t a subset of what I have in mind. I’d be interested in seeing your shortlist.
For more detail, see my exchange in the descendents of this comment—I still mostly agree with my claims about the technical aspects of AUP as presented in this post. Fleshing out these details is also, in my opinion, a good candidate for follow-up work.
Without rereading all of the threads, I’d like to note that I now agree with Daniel about the subhistories issue. I also agree that the formalization in this post is overly confusing and complicated.
I’m curious whether these are applications I’ve started to gesture at in Reframing Impact
I confess that it’s been a bit since I’ve read that sequence, and it’s not obvious to me how to go from the beginnings of gestures to their referents. Basically what I mean is ‘when trying to be cooperative in a group, preserve generalised ability to achieve goals’, nothing more specific than that.
Note: this is on balance a negative review of the post, at least least regarding the question of whether it should be included in a “Best of LessWrong 2018” compilation. I feel somewhat bad about writing it given that the author has already written a review that I regard as negative. That being said, I think that reviews of posts by people other than the author are important for readers looking to judge posts, since authors may well have distorted views of their own works.
The idea behind AUP, that ‘side effect avoidance’ should mean minimising changes in one’s ability to achieve arbitrary goals, seems very promising to me. I think the idea and its formulation in this post substantially moved forward the ‘impact regularisation’ line of research. This represents a change in opinion since I wrote this comment.
I think that this idea behind AUP has fairly obvious applications to human rationality and cooperation, although they aren’t spelled out in this post. This seems like a good candidate for follow-up work.
This post is very long, confusing to me in some sections, and contains a couple of English and mathematical typos.
I still believe that the formalism presented in this post has some flaws that make it not suitable for canonisation. For more detail, see my exchange in the descendents of this comment—I still mostly agree with my claims about the technical aspects of AUP as presented in this post. Fleshing out these details is also, in my opinion, a good candidate for follow-up work.
I think that the ideas behind AUP that I’m excited about are better communicated in other posts by TurnTrout.
I’m curious whether these are applications I’ve started to gesture at in Reframing Impact, or whether what you have in mind as obvious isn’t a subset of what I have in mind. I’d be interested in seeing your shortlist.
Without rereading all of the threads, I’d like to note that I now agree with Daniel about the subhistories issue. I also agree that the formalization in this post is overly confusing and complicated.
I confess that it’s been a bit since I’ve read that sequence, and it’s not obvious to me how to go from the beginnings of gestures to their referents. Basically what I mean is ‘when trying to be cooperative in a group, preserve generalised ability to achieve goals’, nothing more specific than that.