Comment author:LessRightToo
26 December 2014 03:37:49AM
4 points
[-]
(1) I read the paper carefully, and enjoyed it. Thanks for publishing it!
(2) I only noticed one typo - a missing period on page 3. There may also be an accidental CR at the same location that unintentionally splits a paragraph.
(3) I'm skeptical whether a useful theory of machine intelligence safety can be developed prior to the development of advanced machine intelligence capability. Instead, I think that safety and capability must co-evolve. If so, then a technical research agenda which fails to include monitoring and/or participating in capability development may need to be revised.
(4) My own experience is that having a prototype machine intelligence capability available, even if primitive, is immensely valuable in thinking about safety.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
(1) I read the paper carefully, and enjoyed it. Thanks for publishing it! (2) I only noticed one typo - a missing period on page 3. There may also be an accidental CR at the same location that unintentionally splits a paragraph. (3) I'm skeptical whether a useful theory of machine intelligence safety can be developed prior to the development of advanced machine intelligence capability. Instead, I think that safety and capability must co-evolve. If so, then a technical research agenda which fails to include monitoring and/or participating in capability development may need to be revised. (4) My own experience is that having a prototype machine intelligence capability available, even if primitive, is immensely valuable in thinking about safety.