wedrifid comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong

29 Post author: AnnaSalamon 01 December 2009 01:42AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (264)

Comments (264)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2009 02:48:04AM * 1 point [-]

Ok, this being said where is your design? This reminds me of a movement in physics that wants to discard GR because it fails to explain some phenomena and is part of the rift in physics. Of course these people have nothing to replace GR with so the fact that you can argue that GR is not completely right is a bit pointless until you have something to replace it with, GR not being totally wrong. That being said how is your dismissal of the rest of AGI any better then that?

For this analogy to hold there would need to be an existing complete theory of AGI.

(There would also need to be something in the theory or proposed application analogous to "hey! We should make a black hole just outside our solar system because black holes are like way cool and powerful and stuff!")

Ok opinions on the relative merits of the AGI projects mentioned aside you did not answer my first and the question. The question I am actually most interested in the answer too which is where is the technical work? I was looking for some detail as to what part of step one you are working on? So if TDT is important to your FAI then how is the math coming? Are you updating LOGI or are you discarding it and doing it all over?

These are good questions. Particularly the TDT one. Even if the answer happened to be "not that important".

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 December 2009 05:34:22AM 3 points [-]

I was working on something related to TDT this summer, can't be more specific than that. If I get any of the remaining problems in TDT nailed down beyond what was already presented, and it's not classified, I'll let y'all know. Writing up the math I've already mentioned with impressive Greek symbols so it can be published is lower priority than the rationality book.

LOGI's out the window, of course, as anyone who's read the arc of LW could very easily guess.

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2009 04:20:40PM 11 points [-]

Writing up the math I've already mentioned with impressive Greek symbols so it can be published is lower priority than the rationality book.

I'm curious to know your reasoning behind this, if you can share it.

It seems to me that the publication of some high-quality technical papers would increase the chances of attracting and keeping the attention of one-in-a-million people like this much more than a rationality book would.

Comment author: mormon2 comment score below threshold [+] (28 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 December 2009 06:13:30PM * 8 points [-]

The problem is that even if nothing "impressive" is available at SIAI, there is no other source where something is. Nada. The only way to improve this situation is to work on the problem. Criticism would be constructive if you suggested a method of improvement on this situation, e.g. organize a new team that is expected to get to FAI more likely than SIAI. Merely arguing about status won't help to solve the problem.

You keep ignoring the distinction between AGI and FAI, which doesn't add sanity to this conversation. You may disagree that there is a difference, but that's distinct from implying that people who believe there is a difference should also act as if there is none. To address the latter, you must directly engage this disagreement.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky comment score below threshold [+] (26 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 December 2009 06:24:49PM 1 point [-]

That comment was intended as the last if m. doesn't suddenly turn reasonable, and more for the benefit of lurkers (since this topic isn't frequently discussed).

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2009 10:37:08PM 0 points [-]

As a curiosity, having one defector in a group who is visibly socially penalized is actually a positive influence on those who witness it (as distinct from having a significant minority, which is a negative influence.) I expect this to be particularly the case when the troll is unable to invoke a similarly childish response.

Comment author: mormon2 05 December 2009 05:22:30AM -1 points [-]

"As a curiosity, having one defector in a group who is visibly socially penalized is actually a positive influence on those who witness it (as distinct from having a significant minority, which is a negative influence.) I expect this to be particularly the case when the troll is unable to invoke a similarly childish response."

Wow I say one negative thing and all of a sudden I am a troll.

Let's consider the argument behind my comment:

Premises: Has EY ever constructed AI of any form FAI, AGI or narrow AI? Does EY have any degrees in any relevant fields regarding FAI? Is EY backed by a large well funded research organization? Could EY get a technical job at such an organization? Does EY have a team of respected experts helping him make FAI? Does EY have a long list of technical math and algorithm rich publications on any area regarding FAI? Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

The answer to each of these questions is no.

The final question to consider is: If EY's primary goal is to create FAI first then why is he spending most of his time blogging and working on a book on rationality (which would never be taken seriously outside of LW)?

Answer: this is counter to his stated goal.

So if all answers being in the negative then what hope should any here hold for EY making FAI? Answer: zero, zilch, none, zip...

If you have evidence to the contrary for example proof that not all the answers to the above questions are no then please... otherwise I rest my case. If you come back with this lame troll response I will consider my case proven, closed and done. Oh and to be clear I have no doubt in failing to sway any from the LW/EY worship cult but the exercise is useful for other reasons.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2009 06:00:58AM 6 points [-]

Has EY ever constructed AI of any form FAI, AGI or narrow AI?

Nobody has done the first two (fortunately). I am not sure if he has created a narrow AI. I have, it took me a few years to realise that the whole subfield I was working in was utter bullshit. I don't disrespect anyone else for reaching the same conclusion.

Does EY have any degrees in any relevant fields regarding FAI?

He can borrow mine. I don't need to make any paper planes any time soon and I have found ways to earn cash without earning the approval of any HR guys.

Is EY backed by a large well funded research organization?

No.

Could EY get a technical job at such an organization?

He probably lacks the humility. Apart from that, probably yes if you gave him a year.

Does EY have a team of respected experts helping him make FAI?

There are experts in FAI?

Does EY have a long list of technical math and algorithm rich publications on any area regarding FAI?

I would like to see some of those. Not the algorithm rich ones (that'd be a bad sign indeed) but the math ones certainly. I'm not sure I would be comfortable with your definition of 'rich' either.

Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

No. No. Both relevant.

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 December 2009 07:16:46AM * 9 points [-]

Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

No. No. Both relevant.

Indeed, they are very relevant. As far as I can tell, Eliezer's job description is "blogger". He is, indeed, brilliant at it, but I haven't seen evidence that he's done anything else of value. As for TDT, everyone here ought to remember the rule for academic research: if it's not published, it doesn't count.

Which is why I don't fault anyone for accusing Eliezer of not having done anything - because they're right.

continue this thread »

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2009 05:45:24AM * 1 point [-]

If EY's primary goal is to create FAI first then why is he spending most of his time blogging and working on a book on rationality?

Because LaTeX has already been done.

So if all answers being in the negative then what hope should any here hold for EY making FAI? Answer: zero, zilch, none, zip...

Zero, zilch, none and zip are not probabilities but the one I would assign is rather low. (Here is where 'shut up and do the impossible' fits in.)

PS: Is it acceptable to respond to trolls when the post is voted up to (2 - my vote)?

Comment author: mormon2 05 December 2009 08:57:14PM 0 points [-]

How am I troll? Did I not make a valid point? Have I not made other valid points? You may disagree with how I say something but that in no way labels me a troll.

The intention of my comment was to find what the hope for EYs FAI goals are based on here. I was trying to make the point with the zero, zilch idea... that the faith in EY making FAI is essentially blind faith.

continue this thread »

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2009 06:00:24AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the update. Hopefully one of the kids you invite to visit has a knack for translating into impressive and you can delegate.

wedrifid comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (264)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (264)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login