Peterdjones

Karma: −1,560

Peterdjones Sep 10, 2013, 11:12 AM
−6 points
in reply to: Rob Bensinger’s comment on: The genie knows, but doesn’t care

But our interesting disagreement seems to be over (c). Interesting because it illuminates general differences between the basic idea of a domain-general optimization process (intelligence) and the (not-so-)basic idea of Everything Humans Like. One important difference is that if an AGI optimizes for anything, it will have strong reason to steer clear of possible late intelligence defeaters. Late Friendliness defeaters, on the other hand, won’t scare optimization-process-optimizers in general.

But it will scare friendly ones, which will want to keep their values stable.

But, once again, it doesn’t take any stupidity on the AI’s part to disvalue physically injuring a human,

It takes stupidity to misinterpret friendlienss.

Peterdjones Sep 10, 2013, 10:55 AM
−3 points
in reply to: Rob Bensinger’s comment on: The genie knows, but doesn’t care
Now, why exactly should we expect the superintelligence that grows out of the seed to value what we really mean by ‘pleasure’, when all we programmed it to do was X, our probably-failed attempt at summarizing our values?
- Maybe we didn’t do it ithat way. Maybe we did it Loosemore’s way, where you code in the high-level sentence, and let the AI figure it out. Maybe that would avoid the problem. Maybe Loosemore has solved FAi much more straightforwardly than EY.
- Maybe we told it to. Maybe we gave it the low-level expansion of “happy” that we or our seed AI came up with together with an instruction that it is meant to capture the meaning of the high-level statement, and that the HL statement is the Prime Directive, and that if the AI judges that the expansion is wrong, then it should reject the expansion.
- Maybe the AI will value getting things right because it is rational.
What links here?
- Rob Bensinger's comment on The genie knows, but doesn’t care by Rob Bensinger (Sep 13, 2013, 9:47 AM; 0 points)

Peterdjones Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 AM
−8 points
in reply to: player_03’s comment on: The genie knows, but doesn’t care

Yes, but the AI was told, “make humans happy.” Not, “give humans what they actually want.”

And, you assume, it is not intelligent enough to realise that the intended meaning of “make people happy” is “give people what they actually want”—although you and I can see that. You are assuming that it is a subintellgience. You have proven Loosemore’s point.

You say things like “‘Make humans happy’ implies that...” and “subtleties implicit in...” You seem to think these implications are simple, but they really aren’t. They really, really aren’t.

We are smart enough to see that the Dpoamine Drip isn’t intended. The Ai is smarter than us. So....

This is why I say you’re anthropomorphizing.

I say that you are assuming the Ai is dumber than us, when it is stipulated as being smarter.

Peterdjones Sep 10, 2013, 10:19 AM
7 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: The genie knows, but doesn’t care
He’s achieved about what Ayn Rand achieved, and almost everyone thinks she wasa crank.

Peterdjones Aug 18, 2013, 8:55 PM
0 points
in reply to: OnTheOtherHandle’s comment on: Arguments Against Speciesism
And to be fair, you’d have to give ten or a hundred votes to people with PhD’s in political science.

Peterdjones Aug 17, 2013, 10:25 PM
0 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
It is almost always bad Bayes, or any other kind of reasoning, to make judgements about individuals based on group characeristics, since there is almost always information about them as individuals available which is almost always more reliable.

Peterdjones Aug 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
1 point
in reply to: Yosarian2’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?

As evidence for this, he used the fact that right here in America, test scores have gone up over the past several decades. This clearly isn’t caused by some genetic change, so the most likely explanation is cultural change.

Is that actually more likely than environmental change?

Peterdjones Aug 5, 2013, 2:32 PM
−3 points
on: Guardians of Ayn Rand

ith permission from both their spouses, which counts for a lot in my view. If you want to turn that into a “problem”, you have to specify that the spouses were unhappy—and then it’s still not a matter for outsiders.

I dare say many a guru or cult leader has similar “permission”. It often isn’t taken to ecuse their actions, because people recognise that such permission can be browbeaten ot of people by someone who seems to them to be an authority figure.

Peterdjones Aug 5, 2013, 2:05 PM
6 points
in reply to: seymour_results’s comment on: Guardians of Ayn Rand

Rand herself didn’t understand emergence (she casting a biologist as the embodiment of scientific corruption, because there is too much complexity in his area of study for any one human brain to be familiar with), and also didn’t understand much about cybernetics, etc.

That’s hardly the start of it. She opposed relativity and QM, and fence-sat on Evolution.

ETA:

I don’t think “1957” is mcuh of an excuse either, particularly about evolution. For another thing, she never wavered till her death in the 80s. It makes no sense to focus on Bayes, unless your are a Bayes cultist. Rand was unaware that a realistic, raitonal science-orientated form of philosophy had arisen since she was spoon-fed Hegelianism in the early 20th century, and remained unwillingly to connect with it even after John Hospers painfully explained it to her. That’s the acid test of whether you are interested in promoting ideas or yourself.

Peterdjones Jul 25, 2013, 3:55 AM
−4 points
on: Making Rationality General-Interest
Suggestion: teach rationality as an open spirit of enquiry, not as a secular rleigion that will turn you into a clone of Richard Dawkins.

Peterdjones Jul 25, 2013, 3:41 AM
−11 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Making Rationality General-Interest
There are already precise terms for most of the concepts LW discusses. It’s that LW uses its own jargon.

Peterdjones Jul 25, 2013, 3:31 AM
1 point
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Making Rationality General-Interest

You want to teach philosophy as rationality?

Philosophy includes epistemology, which is kind of important to epistemic ratioanlity.

Philosophy is a toolbox as well as a set of doctrines.

Peterdjones Jul 25, 2013, 1:13 AM
0 points
in reply to: Rob Bensinger’s comment on: Making Rationality General-Interest
Or maybe there’s a lot of utility in not coming accross geeky and selfish, so they are already being instementally rational.

Peterdjones Jul 24, 2013, 11:58 PM
0 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Seeking examples of people smarter than me who got hung up
Einstein backed local realism and the ensemble interpretation, both of which have been “thrown out”.

Peterdjones 24 Jul 2013 23:56 UTC
2 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Seeking examples of people smarter than me who got hung up
It may be correct, but not for the reasons usually given: the non existence of ontological randomness is in now way entailed buy the existence of epistemic inderminism.

Peterdjones 24 Jul 2013 16:57 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Eneasz’s comment on: low stress employment/ munchkin income thread
As a former boss of mine used to say: “Bloody five o-clocker”

Peterdjones 24 Jul 2013 15:20 UTC
0 points
on: The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ

. At ﬁrst, complementary eﬀects dominate, and human wages rise with computer productivity. But eventually substitution can dominate, making wages fall as fast as computer prices now do.”

But presumably, productivity would rise as well, increasing the real value of wages of a certain face value.

Peterdjones 24 Jul 2013 15:10 UTC
3 points
on: The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ

It’s plausible we’ll never see a city with a high-speed all-robotic all-electric car fleet because the government, after lobbying from various industries, will require human attendants on every car—for safety reasons, of course!

I believe I have alredy pointed out that automatic trains already exist. Putting a human superintendent onto a train with nothing to do except watch it drive itslef would be quite ineffectice, because the job is so boring they are unlikely to concetrate. I believe exisitng driverless trains are monitored by CCTV, which is more effective since the monotirs actually ahve something to do in flicking between channels, and could be appied to driverless cars.

Peterdjones 24 Jul 2013 14:45 UTC
4 points
on: The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ

The US educational system is either getting worse at training people to handle new jobs, or getting so much more expensive that people can’t afford retraining, for various other reasons. (Plus, we are really stunningly stupid about matching educational supply to labor demand. How completely ridiculous is it to ask high school students to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives and give them nearly no support in doing so? Support like, say, spending a day apiece watching twenty different jobs and then another week at their top three choices, with salary charts and projections and probabilities of graduating that subject given their test scores? The more so considering this is a central allocation question for the entire economy? But I have no particular reason to believe this part has gotten worse since 1960.)

I always think teachers giving careers advice is a bit like prests giving sex advice—uselss at best, dangerous at worst

Peterdjones 22 Jul 2013 13:15 UTC
1 point
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: A case study in fooling oneself

the question of how many worlds can be answered pretty well by ~2 to the power of the average number of decoherence events since the beginning.

Deocherence evernts aren’t well defined .. they are always FAPP. That;s the source of the problem.