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.

Mark_Friedenbach comments on Superintelligence 16: Tool AIs - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: KatjaGrace 30 December 2014 02:00AM

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

Comments (36)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2015 04:35:42AM *  2 points [-]

You can't fake failure. Whether it responds in time or not, a trace is provided. That trace, if it validates, provides a record of everything the program did (or rather a randomly selected subset, but that subset is not knowable in advance), even if it didn't lead to a usable answer. If not valid, you terminate and never run again.

To your second paragraph, these are open questions. But that's precisely my point--I think MIRI should be engaged in researching these sorts of things, and not be biased towards areas relating to their own preconceived notions of what an AGI experiment should look like.