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.

calef comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong Discussion

33 [deleted] 21 May 2015 07:24PM

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

Comments (268)

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

Comment author: calef 21 May 2015 11:06:11PM *  1 point [-]

As far as I can tell, you're responding to the claim, "A group of humans can't figure out complicated ideas given enough time." But this isn't my claim at all. My claim is, "One or many superintelligences would be difficult to predict/model/understand because they have a fundamentally more powerful way to reason about reality." This is trivially true once the number of machines which are "smarter" than humans exceeds the total number of humans. The extent to which it is difficult to predict/model the "smarter" machines is a matter of contention. The precise number of "smarter" machines and how much "smarter" they need be before we should be "worried" is also a matter of contention. (How "worried" we should be is a matter of contention!)

But all of these points of contention are exactly the sorts of things that people at MIRI like to think about.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 May 2015 01:44:21PM 1 point [-]

One or many superintelligences would be difficult to predict/model/understand because they have a fundamentally more powerful way to reason about reality.

Whatever reasoning technique is available to a super-intelligence is available to humans as well. No one is mandating that humans who build an AGI check their work with pencil and paper.

Comment author: calef 23 May 2015 11:30:05PM 2 points [-]

I mean, sure, but this observation (i.e., "We have tools that allow us to study the AI") is only helpful if your reasoning techniques allow you to keep the AI in the box.

Which is, like, the entire point of contention, here (i.e., whether or not this can be done safely a priori).

I think that you think MIRI's claim is "This cannot be done safely." And I think your claim is "This obviously can be done safely" or perhaps "The onus is on MIRI to prove that this cannot be done safely."

But, again, MIRI's whole mission is to figure out the extent to which this can be done safely.