= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Siren worlds and the perils of over-optimised search - 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 (411)
No, it's preferences the problem, not understanding. Why would an AI sitting at the end of a series of self improvements choose to interpret ambiguous coding in the way we prefer?
How do you propose to build an AI without instrumental rationality or preventing that from developing? And how do you propose to convince AI designers to go down that route?
If it has epistemic rationality as a goal, it will default to getting things right rather than wrong.
Not only nstrumental rationality = epistemic rationality.
If it has epistemic rationality as a goal, it will default to acquiring true beliefs about the world. Explain how this will make it "nice".
See above. The question was originally about interpreting directives. You have switched to inferring morality apriori.