= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on No Universally Compelling Arguments in Math or Science - 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 (227)
Rational is persuadable, because people who don't accept good arguments that don't suit them are not considered particularly rational. That is of course an appeal to how the word is generally used, not the LW idiolect.
You could perhaps build an AI that has the stubborn behaviour you describe (although value stability remains unsolved), but so what? there are all sorts of dangerous things you can build: the significant claim is what a non-malevolent real-world research project would come up with. In the world outside LW, general intelligence means general intelligence, not compulsively following fixed goals, and rationality includes persuadability, and "values" doens't mean "unupdateable values".
General intelligence means being able to operate autonomously in the real world, in non-"preprogrammed" situations. "Fixed goals" have nothing to do with it.
You said this:
The only criterion for success is instrumental rationality, which does not imply persuadability. You are equivocating on "rational". Either "rational" means "effective", or it means "like a human". You can't have both.
Also, the fact that you are (anthropomorphically) describing realistic AIs as "stubborn" and "compulsive" suggests to me that you would be better served to stop armchair theorizing and actually pick up an AI textbook. This is a serious suggestion.
I am not equivocating. By "successful" I don't mean (or exclude) good-at-things, I mean it is actually artificial, general and intelligent.
"Strong AI is hypothetical artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence — the intelligence of a machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.[1] It is a primary goal of artificial intelligence research and an important topic for science fiction writers and futurists. Strong AI is also referred to as "artificial general intelligence"[2] or as the ability to perform "general intelligent action."[3] ".
To be good-at-things an agent has to be at least instrumentally rational, but that is in no way a ceiling.
Since there are effective humans, I can.
Right, in exactly the same way that because there are square quadrilaterals I can prove that if something is a quadrilateral its area is exactly L^2 where L is the length of any of its sides.
I can't define rational as "effective and human like"?
You can, if you want to claim that the only likely result of AGI research is a humanlike AI. At which point I would point at actual AI research which doesn't work like that at all.
It's failures are idiots,not evil genii