= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
djm comments on Un-optimised vs anti-optimised - 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 (3)
Would minimising the number of CPU cycles work as a lazy incentive.
This assumes that lesser CPU cycles will produce an outcome that is satisified rather than optimised, though in our current state of understanding any optimisation routines take a lot more computing effort than 'rough enough' solutions.
Perhaps getting the AGI's to go Green will kill two birds with one stone.
This has problems with the creation of subagents: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lur/detecting_agents_and_subagents/
You can use a few CPU cycles to create subagents without that restriction.
It can be difficult to impossible to know how many CPU cycles a problem will take to solve before you solve it.