= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bugmaster comments on The Human's Hidden Utility Function (Maybe) - 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 (87)
This might be a silly question, but still:
Are the three models actually running on three different sets of wetware within the brain, or are they merely a convenient abstraction of human behavior ?
I think what matters is whether they're concurrent—which it sounds like they are. Basically, whether they're more or less simultaneous and independent. If you were emulating a brain on a computer, they could all be on one CPU, or on different ones, and I don't think anyone would suggest that the em on the single CPU should get a different CEV than an identical one on multiple CPUs.
I was really more interested in whether or not we can observe these models running independently in real, currently living humans (or chimps or rats, really). This way, we could gather some concrete evidence in favor of this three-model approach; and we could also directly measure how strongly the three models are weighted relative to each other.
If you could reduce the cognitive cost of the model-based system by designing a "decision-making app", you could directly test if it was beneficial and actually (subjectively or otherwise) improved the subject's lives. If it was successful, you'd have a good chance of beta-testing a real CEV.