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.

TheAncientGeek comments on Tools want to become agents - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 04 July 2014 10:12AM

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

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 06 July 2014 02:46:08PM *  0 points [-]

If you can write a non opened ended goal i

I believe I've done that every time I've used Google maps.

Comment author: Pentashagon 07 July 2014 06:33:12AM 0 points [-]

I believe I've done that every time I've used Google maps.

"How do I get from location A to location B" is more open ended than "How do I get from location A to location B in an automobile" which is even still much more open ended than "How do I get from a location near A to a location near B obeying all traffic laws in a reasonably minimal time while operating a widely available automobile (that can't fly, jump over traffic jams, ford rivers, rappel, etc.)"

Google is drastically narrowing the search space for achieving your goal, and presumably doing it manually and not with an AGI they told to host a web page with maps of the world that tells people how to quickly get from one location to another. Google is not alone in sending drivers off cliffs, into water, the wrong way down one way streets, or across airport tarmacs.

Safely narrowing the search space is the hard problem.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 07 July 2014 10:58:18AM *  0 points [-]

Safely narrowing the search space is the hard problem.

...If you are dealing with an entity that can't add context (or ask for clarifications) the way a human would.

However, an entity that is posited as have a human level intelligence, and the ability to understand natural language would have the ability to contextualise. It wouldn't be able to pass a turing test without it.

Less intelligent and more specialised systems have an inherently narrow search space.

What does that leave...the dreaded AIXI? Theoretically it doesn't have actual language, and theoretically , it does have wide search space.... but practically,it does nothing.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 07 July 2014 11:50:33AM 1 point [-]

...If you are dealing with an entity that can't add context (or ask for clarifications) the way a human would.

Can we note you've moved from "the problem is not open ended" to "the AGI is programmed in such a way that the problem is not open ended", which is the whole of the problem.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 07 July 2014 12:10:19PM *  2 points [-]

In a sense. Non openness is a non problem for fairly limited AIs, because their limitations prevent them having a wide search space that would need to be narrowed down. Non openness is also something that is part of, or an implication of, an ability that is standardly assumed in a certain class of AGIs, namely those with human level linguistic ability. To understand a sentence correctly is to narrow down its space of possible meanings.

Only AIXIs have an own oneness that would need additional measures to narrow them down.

They are no threat at the moment, and the easy answer to AI safety might be to not use them....like we don't build hydrogen filled airships.