Kaj_Sotala comments on "Smarter than us" is out! - Less Wrong

24 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 25 February 2014 03:50PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (56)
Tags: popularisation philosophy intelligence machine_intelligence friendly_ai fai safe_ai smarter_than_us artificial_intelligence ai book

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 February 2014 04:37:29PM 2 points [-]

Ben Goertzel's review in H+ Magazine. Excerpt:

The booklet is clearly written -- very lucid and articulate, and pleasantly lacking the copious use of insider vocabulary that marks much of the writing of the MIRI community. It's worth reading as an elegant representation of a certain perspective on the future of AGI, humanity and the world.

Having said that, though, I also have to add that I find some of the core ideas in the book highly unrealistic.

The title of this article summarizes one of my main disagreements. Armstrong seriously seems to believe that doing analytical philosophy (specifically, moral philosophy aimed at formalizing and clarifying human values so they can be used to structure AGI value systems) is likely to save the world.

I really doubt it!

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 01 March 2014 07:07:25AM 1 point [-]

My response in the comment section:

What I expect from formal "analytic philosophy" methods:

1) A useful decomposition of the issue into problems and subproblems (eg AI goal stability, AI agency, reduced impact, correct physical models on the universe, correct models of fuzzy human concepts such as human beings, convergence or divergence of goals, etc...)

2) Full or partial solutions some of the subproblems, ideally of general applicability (so they can be added easily to any AI design).

3) A good understanding of the remaining holes.

and lastly:

4) Exposing the implicit assumptions in proposed (non-analytic) solutions to the AI risk problem, so that the naive approaches can be discarded and the better approaches improved.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 March 2014 07:55:05AM 0 points [-]

Ben expanded his original article by editing a reply to your points into the end.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 28 February 2014 04:58:05PM 1 point [-]

Sigh... I'll have to get round to addressing that point (though I've already addressed it several times already).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit