= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Because it is the proxy for survival.
I'm not at all sure I understand what you mean. I don't see the connection between familiarity and survival. Moreover, Not all general intelligences will be interested in survival.
Familiar things didn't kill you. No, they are interested in familiarity. I just said that. It is rare but possible for a need for familiarity (as defined mathematically instead of linguistically) to result in sacrifice of a GIA instance's self...
Well, I'm not sure that Familiarity is sufficient to resolve every choice faced by a GIA - for example, how does one derive a reasonable definition of self-defense from Familiarity. But let's leave that aside for a moment.
Why must a GIA subscribe to the value of Familiarity?
Because it is the proxy for survival. You cannot avoid something you by definition cannot have any memory of (nor could have your ancestors)
Self Defense of course requires first fear of loss (aversion to loss is integral, fear and will to stop it is not), awareness of self and then awareness that certain actions could cause loss of self.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to use terminology to misstate your position.
What are three values that a GIA must have, and why must they have them?
ohhhh... sorry... There is really only one, and everything else is derived from it. Familiarity. Any other values would depend on the input, output and parameters. However familiarity is inconsistent with the act of killing familiar things. The concern comes in when something else causes the instance to lose access to something it is familiar with, and the instance decides it can just force that to not happen.
Name three values all agents must have, and explain why they must have them.
The concept of agent is logically inconsistent with the General Intelligence Algorithm. What you are trying to refer to with Agent/tool etc are just GIA instances with slightly different parameters, inputs, and outputs.
Even if it could be logically extended to the point of "Not even wrong" it would just be a convoluted way of looking at it.
In response to
Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous
EDIT: To edit and simplify my thoughts, in order to get a General Intelligence Algorithm Instance to do anything requires masterful manipulation of parameters with full knowledge of generally how it is going to behave as a result. A level of understanding of psychology of all intelligent (and sub-intelligent) behavior. It is not feasible that someone would accidentally program something that would become an evil mastermind. GIA instances could easily be made to behave in a passive manner even when given affordances and output, kind of like a person that was happy to assist in any way possible because they were generally warm or high or something.
You can define the most important elements of human values for a GIA instance, because most of human values are a direct logical consequence of something that cannot be separated from the GIA... IE if general motivation X accidentally drove intelligence (see: Orthogonality Thesis ) and it also drove positive human values, then positive human values would be unavoidable. It is true that the specifics of body and environment drive some specific human values, but those are just side effects of X in that environment and X in different environments only changes so much and in predictable ways.
You can directly implant knowledge/reasoning into a GIA instance. The easiest way to do this is to train one under very controlled circumstances, and then copy the pattern. This reasoning would then condition the GIA instance's interpretation of future input. However, under conditions which directly disprove the value of that reasoning in obtaining X the GIA instance would un-integrate that pattern and reintegrate a new one. This can be influenced with parameter weights.
I suppose this could be a concern regarding the potential generation of an anger instinct. This HEAVILY depends on all the parameters however, and any outputs given to the GIA instance. Also, robots and computers do not have to eat, and have no associated instincts with killing things in order to do so... Nor do they have reproductive instincts...
That is just wrong. SAI doesn't really work like that. Those people have seen too many sci fi movies. It's easy to psychologically manipulate an AI if you are smart enough to create one in the first place. To use terms I have seen tossed around, there is no difference between tool and agent AI. The agent only does things that you program it to do. It would take a malevolent genius to program something akin to a serial killer to cause that kind of scenario.
What on earth is this retraction nonsense?
This one is actually true.
I don't really see what the risk is...
As far as I understand, the SIAI folks believe that the risk is, "you push the Enter key, your algorithm goes online, bootstraps itself to transhuman superintelligence, and eats the Earth with nanotechnology" (nanotech is just one possibility among many, of course). I personally don't believe we're in any danger of that happening any time soon, but these guys do. They have made it their mission in life to prevent this scenario from happening. Their mission and yours appear to be in conflict.
That is just wrong. SAI doesn't really work like that. Those people have seen too many sci fi movies. It's easy to psychologically manipulate an AI if you are smart enough to create one in the first place. To use terms I have seen tossed around, there is no difference between tool and agent AI. The agent only does things that you program it to do. It would take a malevolent genius to program something akin to a serial killer to cause that kind of scenario.
I am in the final implementation stages of the general intelligence algorithm.
Do you mean "I am in the final writing stages of a paper on a general intelligence algorithm?" If you were in the final implementation stages of what LW would recognize as the general intelligence algorithm, the very last thing you would want to do is mention that fact here; and the second-to-last thing you'd do would be to worry about personal credit.
I am open to arguments as to why that might be the case, but unless you also have the GIA, I should be telling you what things I would want to do first and last. I don't really see what the risk is, since I haven't given anyone any unique knowledge that would allow them to follow in my footsteps.
A paper? I'll write that in a few minutes after I finish the implementation. Problem statement -> pseudocode -> implementation. I am just putting some finishing touches on the data structure cases I created to solve the problem.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
When you say "predictable", do you mean in principle or actually predictable?
That is, are you claiming that you can predict what any human values given their environment, and furthermore that the environment can be easily and compactly specified?
Can you give an example?
Mathematically predictable but somewhat intractable without a faster running version of the instance, with the same frequency of input. Or predictable within ranges of some general rule.
Or just generally predictable with the level of understanding afforded to someone capable of making one in the first place, that for instance could describe the cause of just about any human psychological "disorder".