= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on The Design Space of Minds-In-General - 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 (82)
Really? Isn't editing one's goal directly contrary to one's goal? If an AI self-edits in such a way that its goal changes, it will predictably no longer be working towards that goal, and will thus not consider it a good idea to edit its goal.
It depends on how it decides whether or not changes are a good thing. If is trying out two utility functions- Ub for utility before and Ua for utility after- you need to be careful to ensure it doesn't say "hey, Ua(x)>Ub(x), so I can make myself better off by switching to Ua!".
Ensuring that doesn't happen is not simple, because it requires stability throughout everything. There can't be a section that decides to try being goalless, or go about resolving the goal in a different way (which is troublesome if you want it to cleverly use instrumental goals).
[edit] To be clearer, you need to not just have the goals be fixed and well-understood, but every part of everywhere else also needs to have a fixed and well-understood relationship to the goals (and a fixed and well-understood sense of understanding, and ...). Most attempts to rewrite source code are not that well-planned.