mwaser comments on Waser's 3 Goals of Morality - Less Wrong

-12 Post author: mwaser 02 November 2010 07:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (25)

Tags: 3 laws selfish siai slavery cev friendly ai morality ethics

Comments (25)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: jimrandomh 02 November 2010 07:31:22PM 6 points [-]

This is too confused to follow as a human, and much too confused to program an AI with.

Also ambiguity aside, (2) is just bad. I'm having trouble imagining a concrete interpretation of "don't over-optimize" that doesn't reduce to "fail to improve things that should be improved". And while short-sightedness is a problem for humans who have trouble modelling the future, I don't think AIs have that problem, and there are some interesting failure modes (of the destroys-humanity variety) that arise when an AI takes too much of a long view.

Comment author: mwaser comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: Kingreaper 02 November 2010 09:09:52PM * 7 points [-]

You're not expressing yourself very clearly, and you're creating multiple top-level discussion posts for not very clearly thought through reasons.

You're then getting indignant when others don't understand your points, being unwilling to accept that your explanation may have been flawed, and proceeding to insult the community in general.

This is not likely to result in you getting the benefit of the doubt.

If you took a break from top-level posting, and tried to work out your positions more clearly, and less adversarially, you might stand a better chance.

Comment author: mwaser comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: Alicorn 02 November 2010 09:46:55PM * 8 points [-]

Um. Do I have a choice about creating multiple top-level posts? (Yes, that is a serious question) Once a post is below threshold...

Yes, you have a choice about making top-level posts. If you keep making such poor ones, so often, with so little improvement, that choice will be taken away. If you made better ones you could become a valuable contributor; if you made poor ones infrequently, you'd be a very low-level nuisance not worth tackling. As is, I'm more tempted every time you post to ban the noise you throw around in defense of the signal-to-noise ratio.

I endorse everything Kingreaper said in the grandparent. You would do well to take such kind advice more seriously.

Comment author: mwaser 02 November 2010 10:25:34PM 2 points [-]

Got it. Believe it or not, I am trying to figure out the rules (which are radically different than a number of my initial assumptions) and not trying solely to be a pain in the ass.

I'll cool it on the top level posts.

Admittedly, a lot of my problem is that there is either a really huge double standard or I'm missing something critical. To illustrate . . . . Kingfisher's comment "Something is clear if it is easily understood by those with the necessary baseline knowledge." My posts are, elsewhere, considered very clear by people with less baseline knowledge. If my post was logically incorrect to someone with higher knowledge, then they should be able to dissect it and get to the root of the problem. Instead, what I'm seeing is tremendous numbers of strawmen. The lesson seems to be "If you don't go slow and you fail to rule out every single strawman that I can possibly raise, I will refuse to let you go further (and I will do it by insisting that you have actively embraced the strawman). Am I starting to get it or am I way off base?

Note: I am never trying to insult (except one ill-chosen all caps response). But the community seems to be acting against its own goals as I perceive they have stated them. Would it be fair to say that your expectations (and apparently even goals) are not clear to new posters (not newcomers, I have read and believe I grok all of the sequences, etc. to the extent that virtually any link that is pointed to, I've already seen).

Another, last comment. At the top of discussion posts, it says "This part of the site is for the discussion of topics not yet ready or not suitable for normal top-level posts." That is what led me to believe that posting a couple of posts that I obviously considered ready for normal prime-time (i.e. not LessWrong) wouldn't be a problem. I am now being told that it is a problem and I will abide. But can you make any clarification?

Thanks.

Comment author: jimrandomh 02 November 2010 11:35:55PM 8 points [-]

Kingfisher's definition of clarity is actually not quite right. In order to be clear, you have to carve reality at the joints. That's what the problem was with the Intelligence vs. Wisdom post; there wasn't anything obviously false, at least that I noticed, but it seemed to be dividing up concept space in an unnatural way. Similarly with this post. For example, "selfish" is a natural concept for humans, who have a basic set of self-centered goals by default, which they balance against non-self-centered goals like improving their community. But if you take that definition and try to transfer it to AIs, you run into trouble, because they don't have those self-centered goals, so if you want to make sense of it you have to come up with a new definition. Is an AI that optimizes the happiness of its creator, at the expense of other humans, being selfish? How about the happiness of its creator's friends, at the expense of humanity in general? How about humanity's happiness, at the expense of other terrestrial animals?

Using fuzzy words in places where they don't belong hides a lot of complexity. One way that people respond to that is by coming up with things that the words could mean, and presenting them as counterexamples. You seem to have misinterpreted that as presenting straw-men; it's not saying that the best interpretation is wrong, but rather, saying that the phrasing was vague enough to admit some bad interpretations.

I would also like to add that detecting confusion, both in our own thoughts and in things we read, is one of the main skills of rationality. People here are, on average, much more sensitive to confusion than most people.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 November 2010 10:52:52PM 3 points [-]

At the top of discussion posts, it says "This part of the site is for the discussion of topics not yet ready or not suitable for normal top-level posts." That is what led me to believe that posting a couple of posts that I obviously considered ready for normal prime-time (i.e. not LessWrong) wouldn't be a problem.

Just because the standards are properly lower here than on main LW doesn't mean that you can post an arbitrary volume of arbitrarily ill-received posts without being told to stop.

Comment author: Kingreaper 02 November 2010 09:51:53PM 5 points [-]

Um. Do I have a choice about creating multiple top-level posts? (Yes, that is a serious question) Once a post is below threshold . . . .

You can leave the subject lie, and carry on commenting on other people's.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm not expressing myself in a fashion that this community is happy with (the definition of clear is up for grabs ;-)

No, the definition of clear is not up for grabs. Something is clear if it is easily understood by those with the necessary baseline knowledge. Your posts are not.

You are acting indignant, whether you are or not, and that is not endearing.

My explanation was clearly either poorly communicated or flawed. I disagree with necessarily flawed.

Your communication is an essential part of your explanation. If your communication is poor (aka flawed) then your explanation is poor (aka flawed)

the way LessWrong treats all newcomers is unnecessarily harsh to the extent that you all have an established reputation of having built an "echo chamber" but that this can be changed.

I've been here less time than you. I came in with the idea that I'd learn how the culture works, and behave appropriately within it while improving rationality.

I'm not exactly popular, and I've been in some rather heated debates, but you see me as part of the establishment. Why? Because I made an effort. Make that effort. Try and be part of the community, rather than setting yourself apart deliberately. Think things through before you do them.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 November 2010 08:58:59AM 4 points [-]

First and third paragraphs are attacks at the group, and the second is a rhetorical question (in the right direction). Please stick to object level. If you feel that your views are misrepresented, don't take offense: we try to make a more precise sense of what you say than your words let on, and can err in interpretation. The progress is made by moving forward, correcting the errors and arriving at common understanding. The progress is halted by taking offense, which leads to discouraging of further conversation even without outright stopping it.

If you consider a single top-level goal, then disclaimers about subgoals are unnecessary. Instead of saying "Don't overly optimize any given subgoal (at the expense of the other subgoals)", just say "Optimize the top-level goal". This is simpler and tells you what to do, as opposed to what not to do, with the latter suffering from all the problems of nonapples.

Comment author: mwaser 03 November 2010 08:34:25PM 3 points [-]

Now that I've got it, this is clear, concise, and helpful. Thank you.

I also owe you (personally) an apology for previous behavior.

mwaser comments on Waser's 3 Goals of Morality - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (25)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (25)

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