Well, yes, except that you can have a perfectly good entirely Friendly AI which just shuts down because nobody listens, so why bother?
You're not testing for Friendliness, you're testing for the willingness to continue the irrational waste of bits and energy.
False positives are vastly better than false negatives when testing for friendliness though. In the case of an oracle AI, friendliness includes a desire to answer questions truthfully regardless of the consequences to the outside world.
The old woman is looking down.
A line drawing version might be easier.
Ah yes, that did it (and I think I have seen the line drawing before) but it still takes a serious conscious effort to see the old woman in either of those. Maybe some Freudian thing where my mind prefers looking at young girls over old women :P
This image sequence is strange. Or maybe I am strange. By now I have played with it quite a bit. And for me it is not easy to see the man in the picture until image 7. The image stops clearly looking like a man about at image 4. And going the reverse the women stops looking clearly like a women about at panel six. I can follow the man along longer but it means to consciously disregard the other aspects. In a meditation-like state I can perceive the whole of the man in image 7 and almost in 8 and in reverse alike. But I have to defocus, not stare and be more dreamy.
Note that I can flip this http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/images/supersenses/young_or_old.jpg and this http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/images/supersenses/necker_cube.gif (the latter takes about 3 seconds to flip.
For me, the pictures in the op stop being a man at around panel 6, going back they stop being a woman at around 4. I can flip your second example by unfocusing and refocusing my eyes, but in your first example I can't for the life of me see anything other than a young woman looking away from the camera (I'm amusing there is an old woman in there somewhere based on the image name).
Could you give a hint as to how to flip it? I'm assuming the ear turns into an eye or something, but I've been trying for about half an hour now and it is annoying the crap out of me.
(eg if accuracy is defined in terms of the reaction of people that read its output).
I'm mostly ignorant about AI design beyond what I picked up on this site, but could you explain why you would define accuracy in terms of how people react to the answers? There doesn't seem to be an obvious difference between how I react to information that is true or (unbeknownst to me) false. Is it just for training questions?
The general problem with it is that it can be used too easily as an excuse. Hm, I think we should try to find the meta of this, this looks useful. Basically imagine a graph where various human situations are on the X and the usefulness of a given thing in that situation is the Y. And another graph, where the usefulness of that thing as an excuse is on Y. And if the second tends to be higher, that is not a good thing.
Another meta: there is a difference between thinking I figure X is good and thinking I am entitled to decide whether X is good.
For example the good old trolley problem. Pushing the fat man is the almost obviously right choice looking at that situation only ("shut up and multiply", feelings like OMG I am a murderer now do not matter as much as lives), but it is highly dangerous if people feel like they are entitled to take such choices, they are entitled to sacrifice someone without their consent for the greater good. This is a very different thing. It generates an excuse for others in far different situations.
A truly saintly person would push the fat man then demand to be punished, because the choice was right but he was not entitled to make such a choice and others should not feel entitled to either.
I'm not sure how much I agree with the whole "punishing correct behavior to avoid encouraging it" (how does the saintly person know that this is the right thing for him to do if it is wrong for others to follow his example), but I think the general point about tracking whose utility (or lives in this case) you are sacrificing is a good one.
I'm trying to understand fear of public speaking, because that's an emotion I appear to lack entirely.
So if you have it - a little or a lot - can you tell me if it is better when your audience is paying full attention, versus when they're somewhat distracted, looking somewhere else, versus when they're not listening at all but looking at their cellphones or something?
What does it feel like when someone is silently looking at you with a blank expression, and how does that feeling change depending on whether you're speaking?
Mild fear here, I can talk in groups of people just fine, but I get nervous before and during a presentation (something for which I have taken deliberate steps to get better at).
For me at least, the primary thing that helps is being comfortable with the subject matter. If I feel like I know what I'm talking about and I practiced what I am going to say it usually goes fine (it took some effort to get to this level, btw), but if I feel like I have to bluff my way through everything falls apart real fast. The number of people in the audience and how well I know them both have noticeable effect as well, but what the audience is doing has almost no influence at all.
The one exception to this is asking questions, if I have a good answer to a question my mind switches from presentation mode to conversation mode, which I am, for some reason, much more at ease with. (Note: This doesn't work on everyone, some people instead get way more nervous, so don't take this as an encouragement to start asking questions when the presenter seems nervous.)
And it isn't that he has no empathy, he just has more empathy for mankind as a whole than for the guy standing in front of him, and he's drawing logical conclusions from that difference.
That's a risky game. It makes the company culture less enjoyable. That makes hiring harder and can motivate people to quit. Musk can afford this because of the strength of the vision of his company, that makes people to work there but it's still not clear that it's optimal.
Basically the ends don't justify the means (Among Humans). We are nowhere near smart enough to think those kinds of decisions (or any decisions really) through past all their consequences (and neither is Elon Musk).
It is possible that Musk is right and (in this specific case) it really is a net benefit to mankind to not take one minute to phrase something in a way that it is less hurtful, but in the history of mankind I would expect that the vast majority of people who believed this were actually just assholes trying to justify their behavior. And besides, how many hurt feelings are 55 seconds of Elon Musks time really worth from a utilitarian standpoint? I don't know, but I doubt Musk has done any calculations on it.
I'm playing around with writing a Chrome extension that identifies countries of the world in the browser and marks them up with expandable, at-a-glance summary data for that country, like GDP per capita, composite index scores (HDI, MPI, etc.), literacy rate, principal exports and so on. I find myself regularly looking this up on Wikipedia anyway, and figured I'd remove the inconvenience of doing so.
This example probably isn't that useful for everyone, but it got me wondering what other sets of things could be marked up in the browser in this way. Another example that occurred to me was legislature voting records, where a similar plugin would provide easy visibility of how elected representatives voted on legislation. Again, not useful for everyone, but I could imagine political junkies getting some use out of it.
Such a set of mark-uppable entities would have to be either identifiable by format (like an ISBN) where the data could be fetched from a remote source, or a finite list of a few hundred items (like countries), where the data could be stored locally. What kinds of things would you like this sort of visibility on in the browser? Is there a set of entities you find yourself tiresomely looking up data for over and over again?
(Partly inspired by the Dictionary of Numbers)
I'm still sad that there isn't a dictionary of numbers for Firefox, it sounds amazing but it isn't enough to make me switch to Chrome just for that.
It's not exactly the quote.
Bismark doesn't speak about people who attempt to learn but who believe they learn.
I stand corrected, thank you.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Which definition of Friendliness are you referring to? I have a feeling you're treating Friendliness as a sack into which you throw whatever you need at the moment...
Fair enough, let me try to rephrase that without using the word friendliness:
We're trying to make a superintelligent AI that answers all of our questions accurately but does not otherwise influence the world and has no ulterior motives beyond correctly answering questions that we ask of it.
If we instead accidentally made an AI that decides that it is acceptable to (for instance) manipulate us into asking simpler question so that it can answer more of them, it is preferable that it doesn't believe anyone is listening to the answers it gives because that is one less way it has for interacting with the outside world.
It is a redundant safeguard. With it, you might end up with a perfectly functioning AI that does nothing, without it, you may end up with an AI that is optimizing the world in an uncontrolled manner.