= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Work harder on tabooing "Friendly AI" - 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 (51)
It doesn't give you a utility-based model. A model is a structure whose parts correspond to parts of the thing modelled, and which interact in the same way as in the thing modelled. This post-hoc utility function does not correspond to anything.
What next? Label with 1 everything that happens and 0 everything that doesn't and call that a utliity-based model of the universe?
Here, I made it pretty clear from the beginning that I was starting with an existing model - and then modifying it. A model with a few bits strapped onto it is still a model.
If I stick a hamburger on my car, the car is still a car -- but the hamburger plays no part in what makes it a car.
AFAICS, I never made the corresponding claim - that the utility function was part of what made the model a model.
How else can I understand your words "utility-based models"? This is no more a utility-based model than a hamburger on a car is a hamburger-based car.
Well, I would say "utilitarian", but that word seems to be taken. I mean that the model calculates utilities associated with its possible actions - and then picks the action with the highest utility.
But that is exactly what this wrapping in a post-hoc utility function doesn't do. The model first picks an action in whatever way it does, then labels that with utility 1.