TheAncientGeek comments on Steelmanning MIRI critics - Less Wrong

6 Post author: fowlertm 19 August 2014 03:14AM

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

Comments (67)

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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 August 2014 09:27:20PM 2 points [-]

Why talk about unupdateable UFs and "solving morality" if you are not going for that approach?

Comment author: lukeprog 20 August 2014 09:54:40PM 3 points [-]

Again, a simplification, but: we want a sufficient guarantee of stably friendly behavior before we risk pushing things past a point of no return. A sufficient guarantee plausibly requires having robust solutions for indirect normatively, stable self-modification, reflectively consistent decision theory, etc. But that doesn't mean we expect to ever have a definite "proof" that system will be stably friendly.

Formal methods work for today's safety-critical software systems never results in a definite proof that a system will be safe, either, but ceteris paribis formal proofs of particular internal properties of the system give you more assurance that the system will behave as intended than you would otherwise have.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 21 August 2014 10:16:21AM 2 points [-]

Otherwise compared to nothing, or otherwise compared to informal methods?

Are you talking into account that the formal/proveable/unupdateable approach has a drawback in the AI domain that it doesn't have in the non AI domain, namely you lose the potential to tell an AI "stop doing that,it isn't nice"

Comment author: lukeprog 21 August 2014 03:46:04PM -1 points [-]

you lose the potential to tell an AI "stop doing that,it isn't nice"

How so?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 22 August 2014 02:57:02PM *  0 points [-]

Do you think that wouldl work on Clippie?