= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gRR comments on How likely the AI that knows it's evil? Or: is a human-level understanding of human wants enough? - 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)
Comments (29)
Yeah, it's weird that Eliezer's metaethics and FAI seem to rely on figuring out "true meanings" of certain words, when Eliezer also wrote a whole sequence explaining that words don't have "true meanings".
For example, Eliezer's metaethical approach (if it worked) could be used to actually answer questions like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there, does it make a sound?", not just declare them meaningless :-) Namely, it would say that "sound" is not a confused jumble of "vibrations of air" and "auditory experiences", but a coherent concept that you can extrapolate by examining lots of human brains. Funny I didn't notice this tension until now.
Does is rely on true meanings of words, particularly? Why not on concepts? Individually, "vibrations of air" and "auditory experiences" can be coherent.
What's the general algorithm you can use to determine if something like "sound" is a "word" or a "concept"?
If it extrapolates coherently, then it's a single concept, otherwise it's a mixture :)
This may actually be doable, even at present level of technology. You gather a huge text corpus, find the contexts where the word "sound" appears, do the clustering using some word co-occurence metric. The result is a list of different meanings of "sound", and a mapping from each mention to the specific meaning. You can also do this simultaneously for many words together, then it is a global optimization problem.
Of course, AGI would be able to do this at a deeper level than this trivial syntactic one.