= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Concrete vs Contextual values - 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 (32)
I think we might be getting too terse. I have explained some cases where the effectiveness of a collection of atoms at performing goals has a different value dependent upon the environment. We need to explain those, so our function of
intelligence func (atoms a, environment e) can't just be
intelligence func (atoms a) which would be simpler
We need the environment in there some times and we need to explain why it is in there and why not. What would justify making the equal case the default is if over the space of all environment more often than not the environment made no difference.
The environments we encounter are very homogeneous compared to the space of possibilities, enough so that it generally won't flip the ordering of (sufficiently different) minds by intelligence/optimization power. There's no plausible (pre-Singularity) environment in which chimps will suddenly have the technological advantage over humans, though they tie us in the case of global extinction.
Why pick chimps particularly? If there any environments where humans don't survive and things with less brain power do (e.g. bacteria, beetles) then it indicates that it is not always good to have a big brain.