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.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on An example of self-fulfilling spurious proofs in UDT - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: cousin_it 25 March 2012 11:47AM

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

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 25 March 2012 12:12:25PM *  5 points [-]

More generally, what makes Q dangerous is that (1) it only settles for a spurious moral argument, doesn't accept natural ones, and (2) what it finds is taken seriously by the agent, acted out. As a result, provability of a spurious moral argument provably implies its truth, which by Loeb's theorem makes it true and forces the agent to be thus misled.

The only difference between Q and normal proof search procedures is that the normal procedures are OK with any proof, while Q dislikes natural proofs and ignores them. And this bit of "motivated skepticism" is sufficient to make the preferred spurious proofs come true, Q doesn't just loop without finding anything.

This is a whole new level of Oracle AI unsafety... Take what it says seriously, and it can argue you into doing anything at all. :-)

Comment author: orthonormal 25 March 2012 04:17:02PM *  1 point [-]

You mean Q instead of P, right? (Edit: Fixed.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 25 March 2012 04:27:15PM *  0 points [-]

Right, cousin_it changed some terminology from the post on the list, I didn't notice. (Fixed.)