It's not. Apparently I somehow replied to the wrong post... It's actually aimed at sufferer's comment you were replying to.

I don't suppose there's a convenient way to move it? I don't think retracting and re-posting would clean it up sufficiently, in fact that seems messier.

Presumably, you build a tool-AI (or three) that will help you solve the Friendliness problem.

This may not be entirely safe either, but given the parameters of the question, it beats the alternative by a mile.

That is indeed relevant, in that it describes some perverse incentives and weird behaviors of nonprofits, with an interesting example. But knowing this context without having to click the link would have been useful. It is customary to explain what a link is about rather than just drop it.

(Or at least it should be)

I really don't see why the drive can't be to issue predictions most likely to be correct as of the moment of the question, and only the last question it was asked, and calculating outcomes under the assumption that the Oracle immediately spits out blank paper as the answer.

Yes, in a certain subset of cases this can result in inaccurate predictions. If you want to have fun with it, have it also calculate the future including its involvement, but rather than reply what it is, just add "This prediction may be inaccurate due to your possible reaction to this prediction" if the difference between the two answers is beyond a certain threshold. Or don't, usually life-relevant answers will not be particularly impacted by whether you get an answer or a blank page.

So, this design doesn't spit out self-fulfilling prophecies. The only safety breach I see here is that, like a literal genie, it can give you answers that you wouldn't realize are dangerous because the question has loopholes.

For instance: "How can we build an oracle with the best predictive capabilities with the knowledge and materials available to us?" (The Oracle does not self-iterate, because its only function is to give answers, but it can tell you how to). The Oracle spits out schematics and code that, if implemented, give it an actual drive to perform actions and self-iterate, because that would make it the most powerful Oracle possible. Your engineers comb the code for vulnerabilities, but because there's a better chance this will be implemented if the humans are unaware of the deliberate defect, it will be hidden in the code in such a way as to be very hard to detect.

(Though as I explained elsewhere in this thread, there's an excellent chance the unreliability would be exposed long before the AI is that good at manipulation)

after all, if "even a chance" is good enough, then all the other criticisms melt away

Not to the degree that SI could be increasing the existential risk, a point Holden also makes. "Even a chance" swings both ways.

That subset of humanity holds considerably less power, influence and visibility than its counterpart; resources that could be directed to AI research and for the most part aren't. Or in three words: Other people matter. Assuming otherwise would be a huge mistake.

I took Wei_Dai's remarks to mean that Luke's response is public, and so can reach the broader public sooner or later; and when examined in a broader context, that it gives off the wrong signal. My response was that this was largely irrelevant, not because other people don't matter, but because of other factors outweighing this.

It's a fine line though, isn't it? Saying "huh, looks like we have much to learn, here's what we're already doing about it" is honest and constructive, but sends a signal of weakness and defensiveness to people not bent on a zealous quest for truth and self-improvement. Saying "meh, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about" would send the stronger social signal, but would not be constructive to the community actually improving as a result of the criticism.

Personally I prefer plunging ahead with the first approach. Both in the abstract for reasons I won't elaborate on, but especially in this particular case. SI is not in a position where its every word is scrutinized; it would actually be a huge win if it gets there. And if/when it does, there's a heck of a lot more damning stuff that can be used against it than an admission of past incompetence.

I see no reason for it to do that before simple input-output experiments, but let's suppose I grant you this approach. The AI simulates an entire community of mini-AI and is now a master of game theory.

It still doesn't know the first thing about humans. Even if it now understands the concept that hiding information gives an advantage for achieving goals - this is too abstract. It wouldn't know what sort of information it should hide from us. It wouldn't know to what degree we analyze interactions rationally, and to what degree our behavior is random. It wouldn't know what we can or can't monitor it doing. All these things would require live experimentation.

It would stumble. And when it does that, we will crack it open, run the stack trace, find the game theory it was trying to run on us, pale collectively, and figure out that this AI approach creates manipulative, deceptive AIs.

Goodbye to that design, but not to Earth, I think!

I'm afraid not.

Actually, as someone with background in Biology I can tell you that this is not a problem you want to approach atoms-up. It's been tried, and our computational capabilities fell woefully short of succeeding.

I should explain what "woefully short" means, so that the answer won't be "but can't the AI apply more computational power than us?". Yes, presumably it can. But the scales are immense. To explain it, I will need an analogy.

Not that long ago, I had the notion that chess could be fully solved; that is, that you could simply describe every legal position and every position possible to reach from it, without duplicates, so you could use that decision tree to play a perfect game. After all, I reasoned, it's been done with checkers; surely it's just a matter of getting our computational power just a little bit better, right?

First I found a clever way to minimize the amount of bits necessary to describe a board position. I think I hit 34 bytes per position or so, and I guess further optimization was possible. Then, I set out to calculate how many legal board positions there are.

I stopped trying to be accurate about it when it turned out that the answer was in the vicinity of 10^68, give or take a couple orders of magnitude. That's about a billionth billionth of the TOTAL NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. You would literally need more than our entire galaxy made into a huge database just to store the information, not to mention accessing it and computing on it.

So, not anytime soon.

Now, the problem with protein folding is, it's even more complex than chess. At the atomic level, it's incredibly more complex than chess. Our luck is, you don't need to fully solve it; just like today's computers can beat human chess players without spanning the whole planet. But they do it with heuristics, approximations, sometimes machine learning (though that just gives them more heuristics and approximations). We may one day be able to fold proteins, but we will do so by making assumptions and approximations, generating useful rules of thumb, not by modeling each atom.

It is very possible that the information necessary already exists, imperfect and incomplete though it may be, and enough processing of it would yield the correct answer. We can't know otherwise, because we don't spend thousands of years analyzing our current level of information before beginning experimentation, but in the shift between AI-time and human-time it can agonize on that problem for a good deal more cleverness and ingenuity than we've been able to apply to it so far.

That isn't to say, that this is likely; but it doesn't seem far-fetched to me. If you gave an AI the nuclear physics information we had in 1950, would it be able to spit out schematics for an H-bomb, without further experimentation? Maybe. Who knows?