You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

muflax comments on Why No Wireheading? - Less Wrong Discussion

16 [deleted] 18 June 2011 11:33PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (112)
Tags: wirehead values

Comments (112)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 June 2011 03:50:33PM 0 points [-]

The short version of mulfax's question is: Are we wrong?

My answer is simple: No, I am not wrong, thanks for asking.

To clarify, I'm not interested in convincing you, I'm interested in understanding you.

  • Hey, humans are reward-based. Isn't wireheading a cool optimization?
  • Nope.
  • That's it?
  • That's it.
  • But reinforcement. It's neat and elegant! And some people are already doing crude versions of it. And survival doesn't have to be an issue. Or exploitation.
  • Still nope.
  • Do you have any idea what causes your rejection? How the intuition comes about? Do you have a plausible alternative model?
  • No.
  • O... kay?

I know that "let me give you a coredump of my complete decision algorithm so you can look through it and figure it out" isn't an option, but "nope" doesn't really help me.

Good point about CEV, though.

Comment author: knb 22 June 2011 12:37:11PM 2 points [-]

I know that "let me give you a coredump of my complete decision algorithm so you can look through it and figure it out" isn't an option, but "nope" doesn't really help me.

You aren't getting a "nope" muflax.

Hey, humans are reward-based. Isn't wireheading a cool optimization?

This is where you're wrong. Reward is just part of the story. Humans have complex values, which you seem to be willfully ignoring, but that is what everyone keeps telling you.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit