= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Intelligence Explosion analysis draft: types of digital intelligence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (24)
Curious: is your lack of endorsement for Legg's formalization because you don't think that most readers would accept it, or because you find it flawed? (I always thought that his formalization was a pretty good one, and would like to hear about serious flaws if you think that such exist.)
I don't endorse Legg's formalization because it is limited to reinforcement learning agents.
That's a good reason, and you should make that explicit.
Good point.
You can substitute "utility" for "reward", if you prefer. Reinforcement learning is a fairly general framework, except for its insistence on a scalar reward signal. If you talk to RL folk about the need for multiple reward signals, they say that sticking that information in the sensory channels is mathematically equivalent - which is kinda true.