= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Juno_Watt comments on General purpose intelligence: arguing the Orthogonality thesis - 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 (156)
If an agent has goal G1 and sufficient introspective access to know its own goal, how would avoiding arbirtrariness in its goals help it achieve goal G1 better than keeping goal G1 as its goal?
I suspect we humans are driven to philosophize about what our goals ought to be by our lack of introspective access, and that searching for some universal goal, rather than what we ourselves want, is a failure mode of this philosophical inquiry.
Avoiding arbitrariness is useful to epistemic rationality and therefore to instrumental rationality. If an AI has rationality as a goal it will avoid arbitrariness, whether or not that assists with G1.
Avoiding giving credence to arbitrary beliefs is useful to epistemic rationality and therefor to instrumental rationality, and therefor to goal G1. Avoiding arbitrariness in goals still does not help with achieving G1 if G1 is considered arbitrary. Be careful not to conflate different types of arbitrariness.
Rationality is not an end goal, it is that which you do in pursuit of a goal that is more important to you than being rational.