JoshuaZ comments on What would you do with a solution to 3-SAT? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: alexflint 27 April 2011 06:19PM

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

Comments (78)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 28 April 2011 11:53:41PM 0 points [-]

Also gives the ability to do stuff like "what actions can I take which, within N inferential steps of this model, will produce an outcome I desire?" or "will produce utility > U with probability > P" or such.

Yes, but if the models aren't well-defined then that won't be doable. At this point we can even give rigorous notions what we mean by an intelligence, so our 3-SAT oracle won't be able to help much. The 3-SAT oracle is only going to help for precisely defined questions.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 29 April 2011 12:03:30AM 1 point [-]

Huh? I'm not sure I understand what your objection.

An NP oracle would let you do stuff like "given this sensory data, find a model of size N or less that within K computational steps or less will reproduce the data to within error x, given such a model exists"

Then one can run "which sequence of actions, given this model, will, within S steps, produce outcome A with probability P?"

Whether or not we can give a rigorous definition of intelligence, seems like the above is sufficient to act like an intelligence, right? Yeah, there're a few tricky parts re reflective decision theory, but even without that. Even if we let the thing be non-self-modifying... giving a nice chunk of computing power to the above, given an efficient NP oracle, would be enough to potentially cause trouble. Or so I'd imagine.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 April 2011 12:09:40AM 0 points [-]

Ok, but how are you specifying the outcome? And are you going to specify each input and output?

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 29 April 2011 12:18:46AM 0 points [-]

Just some property of the outcome that you're interested in. ie, all of the above, with the question being "blah blah blah, with f(outcome) = blah with probability blah blah blah blah blah"

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 April 2011 12:24:53AM 0 points [-]

Then you will need to specify your AI for every single output-input pair you are interested in.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 29 April 2011 03:11:16AM 0 points [-]

Huh? I don't follow. (Note, the whole point is that I was claiming that an NP oracle would make, say, a UFAI potentially easy, while to achieve the rather more specific FAI would still be difficult.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 April 2011 03:13:06AM 1 point [-]

It seems that we may be talking past each other. Could you give an explicit example of what sort of question you would ask the NP oracle to help get a UFAI?

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 29 April 2011 03:15:25AM 1 point [-]

Oooh, sorry, I was unclear. I meant the NP oracle itself would be a component of the AI.

ie, give me an algorithm for efficiently solving NP complete problems, and one could then use that to perform the sort of computations I mentioned earlier.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 April 2011 03:18:22AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, I'm confused. Why do you think that such an object would be helpful as part of the AI? I see how it would be useful to an AI once one had one, but I don't see why you would want it as a component that makes it easier to make an AGI.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 29 April 2011 03:20:51AM 0 points [-]

It would make AI easy specifically because it would allow the sorts of computations I described above. If I had a fast way to solve NP complete problems, then I could turn that into a way of performing the previously mentioned computations. Those previously mentioned computations amount to "efficient learning" + "efficient planning".