= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Muehlhauser-Wang Dialogue - 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 (284)
I'm finding these dialogues worthwhile for (so far) lowering my respect for "mainstream" AI researchers.
Pei Wang's definition of intelligence is just "optimization process" in fancy clothes.
His emphasis on raising an AI with prim/proper experience makes me realize how humans can't use our native architecture thinking about AI problems. For so many people, "building a safe AI" just pattern-matches to "raising a child so he becomes a good citizen", even though these tasks have nothing to do with each other. But the analogy is so alluring that there are those who simply can't escape it.
This is a basic mistake. It boggles the mind to see someone who claims to be a mainstream AGI person making it.
I've heard expressions such as "sufficiently powerful optimization process" around LW pretty often, too, especially in the context of sidelining metaphysical questions such as "will AI be 'conscious'?"
(nods) I try to use "superhuman optimizer" to refer to superhuman optimizers, both to sidestep irrelevant questions about consciousness and sentience, and to sidestep irrelevant questions about intelligence. It's not always socially feasible, though. (Or at least, I can't always fease it socially.)