Also, it's only for irrational beings like humans that there is a distinction between "justified' and 'belief.' An AI would simply have degrees of belief in something according to the strength of the justification, using Bayesian rules. So JTB is clearly a human-centered definition, which doesn't usefully define knowledge anyway.
I am skeptical that AIs will do pure Bayesian updates -- it's computationally intractable. An AI is very likely to have beliefs or behaviors that are irrational, to have rational beliefs that cannot be effectively proved to be such, and no reliable way to distinguish the two.
I am skeptical that AIs will do pure Bayesian updates -- it's computationally intractable.
Isn't this also true for expected utility-maximization? Is a definition of utility that is precise enough to be usable even possible? Honest question.
An AI is very likely to have beliefs or behaviors that are irrational...
Yes, I wonder there is almost no talk about biases in AI systems. . Ideal AI's might be perfectly rational but computationally limited but artificial systems will have completely new sets of biases. As a simple example take my digicam, which c...
I intended Leveling Up in Rationality to communicate this:
But some people seem to have read it and heard this instead:
This failure (on my part) fits into a larger pattern of the Singularity Institute seeming too arrogant and (perhaps) being too arrogant. As one friend recently told me:
So, I have a few questions: