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.

Peterdjones comments on Arguing Orthogonality, published form - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 March 2013 04:19PM

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

Comments (10)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 12 March 2014 02:09:43PM *  1 point [-]

An entity that has contradictory beliefs will be a poor instrumental rationalist. It looks like you would need to engineer a distinction between instrumental beliefs and terminal beliefs. While we're on the subject, you might need a firewall to stop an .AI acting on intrinsically motivating ideas, if they exist. In any case, orthogonality is an architecture choice, not an ineluctable fact about minds.

The OT has multiple forms, as Armstrong notes. An OT that says you could make arbitrary combinations of preference and power if you really wanted to, can't plug into an argument that future .AI will ,with high probability, be a Lovecraftian horror, at least not unless you also aargue that an orthogonal architecture will be chosen, with high probability.