gwern comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong

3 [deleted] 02 November 2009 01:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (539)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 03 November 2009 01:20:01AM 1 point [-]

However it doesn't know whether a bit of the world will be useful for that purpose (hardened footprints in mud), until it has lots of computronium.

If it's that concerned, it can just blast off into space, couldn't it? Might slow down development, but the hypothetical mud footprints out to be fine... No harm done by computronium in the sun.

Comment author: whpearson 03 November 2009 02:09:42AM 1 point [-]

The question is should we program it to be that concerned? The human predicate is necessary for CEV if I remember correctly, you would want to extrapolate the volition of everyone currently informationally smeared across the planet as well as the more concentrated humans. I can't find the citation at the moment, I'll hunt tomorrow.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 03 November 2009 03:11:11PM 0 points [-]

The human predicate is necessary for CEV if I remember correctly, you would want to extrapolate the volition of everyone currently informationally smeared across the planet as well as the more concentrated humans.

I think the (non)person predicate is necessary for CEV only to avoid stomping on persons while running it. It may not be essential to try to make the initial dynamic as expansive as possible, since a less-expansive one can always output "learn enough to do a broader CEV, and do so superseding this".

Comment author: whpearson 04 November 2009 12:21:53PM 0 points [-]

Hmm, I think you are right.

We still need to have some estimate of what it will do though so we can predict its speed somewhat.