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.

lukeprog comments on The Inefficiency of Theoretical Discovery - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: lukeprog 03 November 2013 09:26PM

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

Comments (109)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 07 November 2013 11:57:36PM 0 points [-]

MIRI claim to have had an important insight on AI design (this so called "Löbian obstacle") that experts in relevant fields (AI, model checking, automated theorem proving, etc.) didn't have. MIRI attempted to communicate their insight, but so far the experts have mostly ignored MIRI claims or denied that they are likely to be important and relevant.

I wouldn't say MIRI has tried very hard yet to communicate about the Lobian obstacle to people in the relevant fields. E.g. we haven't published about the Lobian obstacle in a journal or conference proceedings.

Part of the reason for that is that we don't expect experts in these fields to be very interested in it. The Lobian obstacle is aiming at better understanding of strongly self-modifying systems, which won't exist for at least 15 years, and probably longer than that.

Comment author: asr 08 November 2013 12:01:55AM 0 points [-]

Part of the reason for that is that we don't expect experts in these fields to be very interested in it. The Lobian obstacle is aiming at better understanding of strongly self-modifying systems, which won't exist for at least 15 years, and probably longer than that.

I agree the AI community won't be very interested. But it might be worth sending it to some theoretical computer science venue -- STOC, say -- instead. If nothing else, it would give useful information about how receptive academics are to the topic.