= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
djm comments on AI-created pseudo-deontology - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
I think the idea of having additional agents B (and C) to act as a form of control is definitely worth pursuing, though I am not clear how it would be implemented.
Is 'w' just random noise added to the max value of u?
If so, would this just act as a limiter and eventually it would find a result close to the original max utility anyway once the random noise falls close to zero?
Specifying v is part of the challenge. But by "noise" I means a whole other utility function added permanently on to u. It would not "fall", it would be a permanent feature of v.