= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dxu comments on A forum for researchers to publicly discuss safety issues in advanced AI - 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 (73)
I feel as though you're engaging in pedantry for pedantry's sake. The point is that if we can't even solve the simplified version of the problem, there's no way we're going to solve the hard version--effectively, it's saying that you have to crawl before you can walk. Your response was to point out that walking is more useful than crawling, which is really orthogonal to the problem here--the problem being, of course, the fact that we haven't even learned to crawl yet. AIXI and Bayes are useful in that solving AGI problems in the context provided can act as a "stepping stone" to larger and bigger problems. What are you suggesting as an alternative? That MIRI tackle the bigger problems immediately? That's not going to work.
You are still assuming that infinite systems count as simple versions of real world finite systems, but that is the assumption I am challenging: our best real world AIs aren't cut down AIXI systems, they are something different entirely, so there is no linear progression from crawling to walking in your terms,
That's not just an assumption; that's the null hypothesis, the default position. Sure, you can challenge it if you want, but if you do, you're going to have to provide some evidence why you think there's going to be a qualitative difference. And even if there is some such difference, it's still unlikely that we're going to get literally zero insights about the problem from studying AIXI. That's an extremely strong absolute claim, and absolute claims are almost always false. Ultimately, if you're going to criticize MIRI's approach, you need to provide some sort of plausible alternative, and right now, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there are any. As far as I can tell, AIXI is the best way to bet.
I have already pointed out that the best AI systems currently existing are not cut down infinite systems.
Something doesn't have to be completely worthless to be sub optimal.