Nornagest comments on Walkthrough of the Tiling Agents for Self-Modifying AI paper - Less Wrong

15 Post author: So8res 13 December 2013 03:23AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (18)
Tags: walkthrough

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 December 2013 09:13:39PM 1 point [-]

Optimization involves going uphill - but you might be climbing a mountain that is sinking into the sea. However, that doesn't mean that you weren't really optimizing - or that you were optimizing something other than altitude.

The question's more about what function's generating the fitness landscape you're looking at (using "fitness" now in the sense of "fitness function"). "Survival" isn't a bad way to characterize that fitness function -- more than adequate for eighth-grade science, for example. But it's a short-tern and highly specialized kind of survival, and generalizing from the word's intuitive meaning can really get you into trouble when you start thinking about, for example, death.

Comment author: timtyler 14 December 2013 10:46:04PM 1 point [-]

The question's more about what function's generating the fitness landscape you're looking at (using "fitness" now in the sense of "fitness function"). "Survival" isn't a bad way to characterize that fitness function -- more than adequate for eighth-grade science, for example. But it's a short-tern and highly specialized kind of survival [...]

Evolution is only as short-sighted as the creatures that compose its populations. If organisms can do better by predicting the future (and sometimes they can) then the whole process is a foresightful one. Evolution is often characterised as 'blind to the future' - but that's just a mistake.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 December 2013 10:52:53PM 1 point [-]

If you're dealing with creatures good enough at modeling the world to predict the future and transfer skills, then you're dealing with memetic factors as well as genetic. That's rather beyond the scope of natural selection as typically defined.

Granted, I suppose there are theoretical situations where that argument wouldn't apply -- but I'm having trouble imagining an animal smart enough to make decisions based on projected consequences more than one selection round out, but too dumb to talk about it. We ourselves aren't nearly that smart individually.

Comment author: timtyler 14 December 2013 11:54:25PM *  -2 points [-]

If you're dealing with creatures good enough at modeling the world to predict the future and transfer skills, then you're dealing with memetic factors as well as genetic. That's rather beyond the scope of natural selection as typically defined.

What?!? Natural selection applies to both genes and memes.

I suppose there are theoretical situations where that argument wouldn't apply

I don't think you presented a supporting argument. You referenced "typical" definitions of natural selection. I don't know of any definitions that exclude culture. Here's a classic one from 1970 - which explicitly includes cultural variation. Even Darwin recognised this, saying: "The survival or preservation of certain favoured words in the struggle for existence is natural selection."

If anyone tells you that natural selection doesn't apply to cultural variation, they are simply mistaken.

I'm having trouble imagining an animal smart enough to make decisions based on projected consequences more than one selection round out, but too dumb to talk about it.

I recommend not pursuing this avenue.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit