= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Let's reimplement EURISKO! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (151)
I've just been Googling to see what became of EURISKO. The results are baffling. Despite its success in its time, there has been essentially no followup, and it has hardly been cited in the last ten years. Ken Haase claims improvements on EURISKO, but Eliezer disagrees; at any rate, the paper is vague and I cannot find Haase's thesis online. But if EURISKO is a dead end, I haven't found anything arguing that either.
Perhaps in a future where Friendly AI was achieved, emissaries are being/will be sent back in time to prevent any premature discovery of the key insights necessary for strong AI.
As silly explanations go, I prefer the anthropic explanation: In worlds where AI didn't stagnate, you're dead and hence not reading this.
Or in non-anthropic terms, strong AI could be done on present-day hardware, if we only knew how, and our survival so far is down to blind luck in not yet discovering the right ideas?
For how long, in your estimate, has the hardware been powerful enough for this to be so?
If Eurisko was a non-zero step towards strong AI, would it have been any bigger a step if Lenat had been using present-day hardware? Or did it fizzle because it didn't have sufficiently rich self-improvement capabilities, regardless of how fast it might have been implemented?
That is silly. In the same vein, why worry about any risks? You'll continue to exist in whatever worlds they didn't develop into catastrophe.
Not all worlds in which you continue to exist are pleasant ones. I think Michael Vassar once called quantum immortality the most horrifying hypothesis he had ever taken seriously, or something along those lines.
Indeed. In particular, "dying of old age" is pretty damn horrifying if you think quantum immortality holds.
If there's quantum immortality, what proportion of your lives would be likely to be acutely painful?
I don't have an intuition on that one. It seems as though worlds in which something causes good health would predominate over just barely hanging on, but I'm unsure of this.
Hunh. I'm glad I'm not the only person who has always found quantum immortality far more horrifying than nonexistence.