poiuyt comments on Domesticating reduced impact AIs - All

9 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 14 February 2013 04:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (104)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: poiuyt 15 February 2013 01:40:35AM 0 points [-]

It seems to me like an AI enclosed in a cloud of chaotic antimatter would not be very useful. Any changes small enough to be screened out by the existence of the antimatter cloud would also be small enough to be destroyed by the antimatter cloud when we go to actually use them, right? If we want the AI to make one paperclip, presumably we want to be able to access that paperclip once it's built. And the antimatter cloud would prevent us from getting at the paperclip. And that's completely ignoring that antimatter bomb rigged to detonate the contents of the box. There needs to be a better way of defining "reduced impact" for this to be a practical idea.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 15 February 2013 12:14:05PM 2 points [-]

Extra clarification: in this example, I'm assuming that we don't observe the AI, and that we are very unlikely to detect the paperclip. How to get useful work out of the AI is the next challenge, if this model holds up.

Comment author: Strange7 18 February 2013 06:35:18AM 0 points [-]

I'm pretty sure this model is inherently a dead end for any useful applications. Even without gratuitous antimatter, a sufficiently smart AI trying to minimize it's future impact will put it's affairs in order and then self-destruct in some low-collateral-damage way which prevents anything interesting from being learned by analysis of the remains.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 February 2013 12:58:52PM 1 point [-]

self-destruct in some low-collateral-damage way which prevents anything interesting from being learned by analysis of the remains

That's a plus, not a minus.

We can also use utility indifference (or something analogous) to get some useful info out.

Comment author: Strange7 21 February 2013 03:54:04PM 0 points [-]

It's a minus if you're trying to convince someone more results-oriented to keep giving you R&D funding. Imagine the budget meeting:

The EPA is breathing down our necks about venting a billion dollars worth of antimatter, you've learned literally nothing, and you consider that a good outcome?

If the AI is indifferent to future outcomes, what stops it from manipulating those outcomes in whatever way is convenient for it's other goals?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 February 2013 04:44:38PM 0 points [-]

Indifference means that it cannot value any change to that particular outcome. More details at: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/18371/2010-1.pdf