= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whpearson comments on Drive-less AIs and experimentation - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (14)
Red = "reflect electromagnetic radiation with a spectrum like X".
If you do not like the Red ball thing, feel free to invent another test, such as flipping a few bits on another computer.
No as that would lead to an decrease in mutual information between the two models. It doesn't care about the ball any more than it does the rest of the universe. This may lead to it doing nothing and not changing the ball colour at all.
Generally yes. The question is can we design one that has no such inclinations or an inclination to very moderate actions.
No, it's the same. Specifying what a physical "computer" is is hard.
What is a "model"? How does one construct a model of the universe? How detailed must it be, whatever it is? What resources should be expended on making a more accurate model? Given two "models", how accurate must a calculation of mutual information be? What if it can't be accurate? What is the tradeoff between making it more accurate and not rewriting the universe with machinery for making it more accurate? Etc.