Why isn't it a minor nitpick? I mean, we use dimensioned constants in other areas; why, in principle, couldn't the equation be E=mc * (1 m/s)? If that was the only objection, and the theory made better predictions (which, obviously, it didn't, but bear with me), then I don't see any reason not to adopt it. Given that, I'm not sure why it should be a significant objection.
Edited to add: Although I suppose that would privilege the meter and second (actually, the ratio between them) in a universal law, which would be very surprising.
The thread about EY's failure to make make many falsifiable predictions is better ad hominem
I meant to provide priors for the expected value of communication with SI. Sorry, can't be done in non ad hominem way. There's been video or two where Eliezer was called "world's foremost expert on recursive self improvement", which normally implies making something self improve.
the speculation about launching terrorist attacks on fab plants is a much more compelling display of potential risk to life and property.
Ahh right, should of also linked this one. I see it was edited replacing 'we' with 'world government' and 'sabotage' with sanctions and military action. BTW that speculation is by gwern, is he working at SIAI?
What probability would you give to FinalState's assertion of having a working AGI?
AGI is ill defined. Of something that would foom as to pose potential danger, infinitesimally small.
Ultimately: I think risk to his safety is small, and payoff is negligible, while the risk from his software is pretty much nonexistent.
I'm not private_messaging, but I think he has a marginally valid point, even though I disagree with his sensational style.
I personally would estimate FinalState's chances of building a working AGI at approximately epsilon, given the total absence of evidence. My opinion doesn't really matter, though, because I'm just some guy with a LessWrong account.
The SIAI folks, on the other hand, have made it their mission in life to prevent the rise of un-Friendly AGI. Thus, they could make FinalState's life difficult in some way, in order to fulfill their core mission. In effect, FinalState's post could be seen as a Pascal's Mugging attempt vs. SIAI.
What probability would you give to FinalState's assertion of having a working AGI?
0%, since it apparently isn't finished yet.
Will it be finished in a year? 2%, as all other attempts that have reached the "final stages" have failed to build working AGI. The most credible of those attempts were done with groups; it appears FinalState is working alone.
Let me try to strengthen your point. If an agent with goal G1 acquires sufficient "philosophical ability", that it concludes that goal G is the right goal to have, that means that it decided that the best way to achieve goal G1 is to pursue what it thinks is the "right goal to have". This would require it to take a kind of normative stance on goal fulfillment, which would require it to have normative machinery, which would need to be implemented in the agents mind. Is it impossible to create an agent without normative machinery of this kind? Does philosophical ability depend directly on normative machinery?
At least try harder in you fear-mongering. The thread about EY's failure to make make many falsifiable predictions is better ad hominem and the speculation about launching terrorist attacks on fab plants is a much more compelling display of potential risk to life and property.
I agree that this is not a game, although you should note that you are doing EY/SIAI/LessWrong's work for it by trying to scare FinalState.
What probability would you give to FinalState's assertion of having a working AGI?
I don't really see what the risk is...
As far as I understand, the SIAI folks believe that the risk is, "you push the Enter key, your algorithm goes online, bootstraps itself to transhuman superintelligence, and eats the Earth with nanotechnology" (nanotech is just one possibility among many, of course). I personally don't believe we're in any danger of that happening any time soon, but these guys do. They have made it their mission in life to prevent this scenario from happening. Their mission and yours appear to be in conflict.
I wrote earlier
"ability to improve decision theory via philosophical reasoning" (as opposed to CDT-AI changing into XDT<CDT> and then being stuck with that)
XDT<CDT> (or in Eliezer's words, "crippled and inelegant form of TDT") is closer to TDT but still worse. For example, XDT<CDT> would fail to acausally control/trade with other agents living before the time of its self-modification, or in other possible worlds.
The Roko incident allows to evaluate the sanity of people he'd be talking to.
Other relevant link:
http://acceleratingfuture.com/sl4/archive/0501/10613.html
"And if Novamente should ever cross the finish line, we all die."
Ultimately, you can present your arguments, I can present my arguments, and then he can decide, to talk to you guys, or not.
Wow. Coordination is hard ;)
Your explanation is more or less what I'd gathered from your earlier statement. It makes sense.
The org. that can convince passionate supporters of the cause to work for $ and donate may be different from the one that can get the most mainstream donations.
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed