= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on What's special about a fantastic outcome? Suggestions wanted. - 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 (19)
I presume the answer you're looking for isn't "fun theory", but I can't tell from OP whether you're looking for distinguishers from our perspective or from an AI's perspective.
I'm looking for something generic that is easy to measure. At a crude level, if the only option were "papercliper" vs FAI, then we could distinguish those worlds by counting steel content.
So basically some more or less objective measure that has a higher proportion of good outcomes than the baseline.
Merely higher proportion, and we're not worried about the criterion being reverse-engineered? Give a memory expert a large prime number to memorize and talk about outcomes where it's possible to factor a large composite number that has that prime as a factor. Happy outcomes will have that memory expert still be around in some form.
EDIT: No, I take that back because quantum. Some repaired version of the general idea might still work, though.
I'm trying to think about ways that might potentially prevent reverse engineering...