Tyrrell_McAllister comments on BOOK DRAFT: 'Ethics and Superintelligence' (part 1, revised) - Less Wrong

14 Post author: lukeprog 22 February 2011 08:59PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (38)
Tags: ethics superintelligence singularity

Comments (38)

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

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 24 February 2011 12:02:01AM *  3 points [-]

I just disagree with all of this.

I would ask you to reconsider. As SilasBarta says, "Yudkowsky (2010)" is fine in the paper, but you used it in the comments here in response to someone's question in this forum.

And no, you don't usually give the page number when the claims you're saying a cited work covers are in the abstract of the paper. The hope is that someone will bother to at least read the abstract of the cited paper before bothering the original author with questions about "Which page number is that on?"

"Um... page one?"

You seem to assume that the only way someone could have asked that question is if they hadn't read even the abstract. But it is easy for me to imagine someone who read the whole paper, or some significant fraction, and just have missed or forgotten the claim that you attribute to Yudkowsky <embarrassed cough>. In which case, saying "It's on page one" would be helpful.

In fact, having read that significant fraction, I would be moderately surprised to hear Yudkowsky characterize TDT as an extension of CDT. He gave me the strong impression of offering an alternative to CDT, one which gets right answers where CDT is wrong. To me, calling TDT "an extension of CDT" implies that it applies to a wider range of problems than CDT, while agreeing with CDT where CDT gives a well-defined answer.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 February 2011 10:16:18AM 1 point [-]

To me, calling TDT "an extension of CDT" implies that it applies to a wider range of problems than CDT, while agreeing with CDT where CDT gives a well-defined answer.

But this is a correct characterization of what TDT does. It extends applicability of CDT from action-determined to decision-determined problems.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 24 February 2011 02:20:54PM *  0 points [-]

But this is a correct characterization of what TDT does. It extends applicability of CDT from action-determined to decision-determined problems.

But CDT already gives well-defined answers to decision-determined problems such as Newcomb's problem. They're just not necessarily the right answers.

By "applies", I mean "yields an output, which supporters claim is correct", not "yields a correct output".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit