earthwormchuck163 comments on Superintelligent AGI in a box - a question. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
If you only want the AI to solve things like optimization problems, why would you give it a utility function? I can see a design for a self-improving optimization problem solver that is completely safe because it doesn't operate using utility functions:
This would produce a self-improving AGI that would do quite well on sample optimization problems and new, unobserved optimization problems. I don't see much danger in this setup because the program would have no reason to create malicious output. Creating malicious output would just increase complexity without increasing performance on the training set, so it would not be allowed under criterion (3), and I don't see why the optimizer would produce code that creates malicious output.
EDIT: after some discussion, I've decided to add some notes:
I claim that if the AI is created this way, it will be safe and do very well on verifiable optimization problems. So if this thing works I've solved friendly AI for verifiable problems.
At best, this will produce cleverly efficient solutions to your sample problems.