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.

Joshua_Blaine comments on The idiot savant AI isn't an idiot - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 July 2013 03:43PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (133)

CC Licenced

Comments (133)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Joshua_Blaine 18 July 2013 05:47:47PM 2 points [-]

I think this is an example of reasoning analogous to philosophy's "free will" debate. Human's don't have any more non-deterministic "free will" than a rock. The same is true of any AI, because an AI is just programming. It may be intelligent and sophisticated enough to appear different in a fundamental way, but it really isn't.

It is posible for an optimizing process to make a mistake, and have an AI devolve into a different goal, which is what makes powerful AI look so scary and different. Example: Humans are more subject to each other's whims than evolutionary pressures these days. Evolution has successfully created an intelligent process that doesn't aim solely for genetic reproductive fitness. Oops, right?

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (12 children)

Comment author: passive_fist 18 July 2013 10:19:42PM 2 points [-]

Just because there is debate surrounding a subject does not mean that the debate is reasonable. In many cases, it is more likely that the people doing the debating are being unreasonable. The global warming debate is a good example of this. One way of being unreasonable is misunderstanding each other's terminology. This happens a lot in free will discussions, and I suspect it is also happening here. A way to get around this is to taboo certain words.

(Also, 'evidence' can have a variety of meanings and not all rational debates strictly require evidence. Mathematics proceeds entirely without any kind of evidence (in fact, evidential reasoning is discounted in mathematics)).

Comment author: Joshua_Blaine 18 July 2013 06:14:58PM * 2 points [-]

Oh, I was unaware this was still an issue within this site. To LW the question of free will is already solved). I encourage you to look further into it.

However, I think our current issue can become a little more clear if we taboo "programming".

What specific differences in functionality do you expect between "normal" AI and "powerful" AI?

Comment author: Lumifer 18 July 2013 06:26:05PM 1 point [-]

I was unaware this was still an issue within this site. To LW the question of free will is already solved.

Let me point out that I am not "within this site" :-) Oh, and your link needs a closing parenthesis.

What specific differences in functionality do you expect between "normal" AI and "powerful" AI?

I am not familiar with your terminology, but are you asking what would I require to recognize some computing system as a "true AI", or, basically, what is intelligence?

Comment author: Joshua_Blaine 18 July 2013 06:46:11PM * 0 points [-]

are you asking what would I require to recognize some computing system as a "true AI", or, basically, what is intelligence?

Somewhat. I think my question is better phrased as, "Why do you have a distinction between true intelligence and not true intelligence?"

My use of intelligence is defined (roughly) as cross domain optimization. A more intelligent agent is just better at doing lots of things it wants to do successfully, and conversely, something that's better at doing a larger variety of tasks than a similarly motivated agent is considered more intelligent. It seems to me to be a (somewhat lumpy and modular) scale, ranging from a rock, up through natural selection, humans, and then a Superintelligent AI near the upper bound.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 July 2013 06:55:03PM 0 points [-]

Why do you have a distinction between true intelligence and not true intelligence?

I have a distinction between what I'd be willing to call intelligence and what I'd say may look like intelligence but really isn't.

For example, IBM's Watson playing Jeopardy or any of the contemporary chess-playing programs do look like intelligence. But I'm not willing to call them intelligent.

My use of intelligence is defined (roughly) as cross domain optimization.

Ah. No, in this context I'm talking about intelligence as a threshold phenomenon, notably as something that we generally agree humans have (well, some humans have :-D) and the rest of things around us do not. I realize it's a very species-ist approach.

I don't think I can concisely formulate the characteristics of it (that will probably take a book or two), but the notion of adaptability, specifically, the ability to deal with new information and new environment, is very important to it.

Comment author: Joshua_Blaine 18 July 2013 07:07:46PM 2 points [-]

Hm. If this idea of intelligence seems valuable to you and worth pursuing, I absolutely implore that you wade through the reductionism sequence while or before you develop it more fully. I think it'd be an excellent resource for figuring out exactly what you mean to mean. (and the very similar Human's guide to words)

Comment author: Lumifer 18 July 2013 07:20:31PM 0 points [-]

Hm. I know of this sequence, though I haven't gone through it yet. We'll see.

On the other hand, I tend to be pretty content as an agnostic with respect to things "without testable consequences" :-)

Comment author: Joshua_Blaine 18 July 2013 08:35:39PM * 0 points [-]

Ah, that's why I think reductionism would be very useful for you. Everything can be broken down and understood in such a way that nothing remains that doesn't represent testable consequences. definitely read How an Algorithm Feels As the following quote represents what you may be thinking when you wonder if something is really intelligent.

Now suppose that you have an object that is blue and egg-shaped and contains palladium; and you have already observed that it is furred, flexible, opaque, and glows in the dark. [all the characteristics implied by the label "blegg"]

This answers every query, observes every observable introduced. There's nothing left for a disguised query to stand for.

So why might someone feel an impulse to go on arguing whether the object is really a blegg [is truly intelligent]?

[brackets] are my additions.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 July 2013 08:48:26PM 0 points [-]

Oh, sure, but the real question is what are all the characteristics implied by the label "intelligent".

The correctness of a definition is decided by the purpose of that definition. Before we can argue what's the proper meaning of the word "intelligent" we need to decide what do we need that meaning for.

For example, "We need to decide whether that AI is intelligent enough to just let it loose exploring this planet" implies a different definition of "intelligent" compared to, say, "We need to decide whether that AI is intelligent enough to be trusted with a laser cutter".

continue this thread »

Comment author: hairyfigment 18 July 2013 07:06:39PM -1 points [-]

I would phrase it as, 'Can you explain what on Earth you mean, without using terms that may be disputed?'

I don't know if it would help to ask about examples of algorithms learning from experience in order to fulfill mechanically specified goals (or produce specified results). But the OP seems mainly concerned with the 'goal' part.

Joshua_Blaine comments on The idiot savant AI isn't an idiot - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (133)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (133)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login