= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psy-Kosh comments on Timeless Identity Crisis - 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 (33)
Ah, but they're actually calculated according to A2, which sometimes gives outputs different from A1 while believing (falsely) that those outputs are what A1 would decide.
Sorry if I was unclear there.
If you don't have access to your own program (otherwise you can't be wrong about whether it's A1 or not), how can you explicitly run it, in the manner of TDT?
Or is it a question of denotational equality between A0, which is the explicit code the agent implements, and A1, which is a different code, but which might give the same output as A0 (or not)?
You may have partial access to your own code, or you may have access to something that you think is your own code, but you're not certain of that.
In that case, you are not running TDT -- or what runs TDT isn't you. That's an explicit algorithm -- you can't have it arbitrarily confused.
Well, that's kind of my point. I'm taking raw TDT and modifying it a bit to take into account the possibility of uncertainty in what computation one actually is effectively running.
EDIT: more precisely, I consider it a serious deficiency of TDT that there didn't seem (to me) to be any simple 'natural' way to take that sort of uncertainty into account. I was thus proposing one way in which it might be done. I'm far from certain it's the Right Way, but I am rather more sure that it's an issue that needs to be dealt with somehow
I guess I didn't give you enough credit. I had redrawn AnnaSalamon's graph to account for your concerns, and I still think it does (even more so than the one in your top-level post), but in doing so, I made it no longer (consistent with) TDT. There is a relevant difference between the algorithm you're actually running, and the algorithm you think you're running, and this uncertainty about the difference affects how you choose your algorithm.
What's more perplexing is, as I've pointed out, Eliezer_Yudkowsky seems to recognize this problem in other contexts, yet you also seem to be correct that TDT assumes it away. Interesting.
(Btw, could you put a link to my graph in your top-level post to make it easier to find?)
Sure. Do you want to give a specific algorithm summary for me to add with your graph to explain your version of how to solve this problem, or do you just want me to add a link to the graph? (added just the link for now, lemme know if there's either a specific comment you want me to also point out to explain your version or anything)
(if nothing else, incidentally, I'd suggest even in your version, the platonic space of algorithms (set of all algorithms) ought have a direct link to "actual think that ends up being implemented")
Thanks for adding the link.
No need: The graph isn't intended to represent a solution algorithm, and I'm not yet proposing one. I just think it better represents what's going on in the problem than Eliezer_Yudkowsky's representation. Which, like you suggest, throws into doubt how well his solution works.
Still, the EY post I linked is an excellent example of how to handle the uncertainty that results from the effect of your innards on what you try to implement, in a way consistent with my graph.
I'm having a hard time thinking about that issue. What does it mean for the PSoA (Platonic Space of Algorithms) to have a causal effect on something? Arguably, it points to all the nodes on the graph, because every physical process is constrained by this space, but what would that mean in terms of finding a solution? What might I miss if I fail to include a link from PSoA to something where it really does connect?
No problem.
As far as linking "space of algorithms" to "Actual thing effectively implemented", the idea is more to maintain one of the key ideas of TDT... ie, that what you're 'controlling' (for lack of a better word) is effectively the output of all instances of the algorithm you actually implement, right?
Yes, well, the goal should be to find an accurate representation of the situation. If the causal model implied by TDT doesn't fit, well, all the worse for TDT!
And incidentally, this idea:
is very troubling to me in that it is effectively saying that my internal thoughts have causal power (or something indistinguishable therefrom) over other people: that by coming to one conclusion means other people must be coming to the same conclusion with enough frequency to matter for my predictions.
Yes, the fact that I have general thoughts, feeling, emotions, etc. is evidence that other people have them ... but it's very weak evidence, and more so for my decisions. Whatever the truth behind the TDT assumption, it's not likely to be applicable often.