Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: hydkyll 23 June 2015 09:11:16PM 2 points [-]

I want to do a PhD in Artificial General Intelligence in Europe (not machine learning or neuroscience or anything with neural nets). Anyone know a place where I could do that? (Just thought I'd ask...)

Comment author: cgag 23 June 2015 05:29:02AM 1 point [-]

I've mostly been here for the sequences and interesting rationality discussion, I know very little about AI outside of the general problem of FAI, so apologies if this question is extremely broad.

I stumbled upon this facebook group (Model-Free Methods) https://www.facebook.com/groups/model.free.methods.for.agi/416111845251471/?notif_t=group_comment_reply discussion a recent LW post, and they seem to cast LW's "reductionist AI" approach to AI in a negative light compared to their "neural network paradigm".

These people seem confident deep learning and neural networks are superior to some unspecified LW approach. Can anyone give a high level overview of what the LW approach to AI is, possibly contrasted with theirs?

Comment author: hydkyll 23 June 2015 09:08:47PM 0 points [-]

I think this sums up the problem. If you want to build a safe AI you can't use neural nets because you have no clue what the system is actually doing.

Comment author: Gust 19 March 2015 06:03:39AM *  4 points [-]

Hi, and thanks for the awesome job! Will you keep a public record of changes you make to the book? I'm coordinating a translation effort, and that would be important to keep it in sync if you change the actual text, not just fix spelling and hyperlinking errors.

Edit: Our translation effort is for Portuguese only, and can be found at http://racionalidade.com.br/wiki .

Comment author: hydkyll 12 April 2015 03:09:54PM 1 point [-]

How is that translation coming along? I could help with German.

Comment author: gjm 10 March 2015 01:29:00PM 2 points [-]

in my country new parties can get into parliament easily, so it's not a waste of time

You may be right, and I don't know the details of your situation or your values, but on the face of it that inference isn't quite justified. It depends on what getting into parliament as such actually achieves. E.g., I can imagine that in some countries it's easy for someone to start a new party and get into parliament, but a new one-person party in parliament has basically zero power to change anything. (It seems like there must be some difficulty somewhere along the line, because if getting the ability to make major changes in what your country does is easy then everyone will want to do it and it will get harder because of competition. Unless somehow this is a huge opportunity that you've noticed and no one else has.)

I like the idea of a political party that has meta-policies rather than object-level policies, but it sounds like a difficult thing to sell to the public in sufficient numbers to get enough influence to change anything.

Comment author: hydkyll 10 March 2015 04:40:35PM 3 points [-]

OK, when I said "easy" I exaggerated quite a bit (I edited in the original post). More accurate would be: "in the last three years at least one new party became popular enough to enter parliament" (the country is Germany and the party would be the AfD, before that, there was the German Pirate Party). Actually, to form a new party the signatures from at least 0.1% of all eligible voters are needed.

but it sounds like a difficult thing to sell to the public in sufficient numbers to get enough influence to change anything.

I also see that problem, my idea was to try to recruit some people on German internet fora and if there is not enough interest drop the idea.

Comment author: hydkyll 10 March 2015 11:00:49AM *  5 points [-]

I'm thinking about starting a new political party (in my country getting into parliament as a new party is e̶a̶s̶y̶ not virtually impossible, so it's not necessarily a waste of time). The motivation for this is that the current political process seems inefficient.

Mostly I'm wondering if this idea has come up before on lesswrong and if there are good sources for something like this.

The most important thing is that no explicit policies are part of the party's platform (i.e. no "we want a higher minimum wage"). I don't really have a party program yet, but the basic idea is as follows: There are two parts to this party; the first part is about Terminal Values and Ethical Injunctions. What do we want to achieve and what do we avoid doing even if it seems to get us closer to our goal. The Terminal Values could just be Frankena's list of intrinsic values. The first requirement for people to vote for this party is that they agree with those values.

The second part is about the process of finding good policies. How to design a process that generates policies that help to satisfy our values. Some ideas:

  • complete and utter transparency to fight the inevitable corruption; publish everything the government does
  • instruct experts to find good policies and then listen to them (how would professional politicians know better than them)
    • let the experts give probabilities on explicit predictions how well the policies will work
    • have a public score board that shows how well individual experts did in the past with their predictions
  • when implementing a new policy, set a date at which to evaluate the efficacy and say in advance what you expect
  • if a policy is found to be harmful, get rid of it; don't be afraid to change your mind (but don't make it unnecessarily hard for businesses to plan for the future by changing policies to frequently)
  • react to feedback from the population; don't wait until the next election

The idea is that the party won't really be judged based on the policies it produces but rather on how well it keeps to the specified process. The values and the process is what identifies the party. Of course there should be some room for changing the process if it doesn't work...

The evaluation of policies in terms of how well they satisfy values seems to be a difficult problem. The problem is that Utilitarianism is difficult in practice.

So, there are quite a few open questions.

Comment author: Gondolinian 22 February 2015 12:19:27PM *  4 points [-]

I think this is a good idea and I anticipate that it would significantly help me, for one, with reading the Sequences. I do however see a potential problem with implementation:

I would recommend one new post per day, going in order of the book. I recommend re-posting the entire article to LW, including any edits or additions that are new in the book.

That would be a lot of posts. If we're talking about making a new post in Discussion everyday, that would likely drown-out most other threads. It would be even worse in Main. (ETA: I think I should have written "dilute" instead of "drown-out." Going by a rough estimate of the current rate of Discussion posts, the proposed series would probably make up only a quarter of Discussion, though that's still a significant change.)

I could, of course, be misunderstanding something, in which case I apologize.

[edited iteratively]

Comment author: hydkyll 22 February 2015 02:39:21PM *  2 points [-]

That would be a lot of posts. If we're talking about making a new post in Discussion everyday, that would likely drown-out most other threads. It would be even worse in Main.

One could start a new subreddit for this reading group. Something like reddit.com/r/LWreadinggroup. But that would defeat the purpose of reviving lesswrong.com.

Comment author: wobster109 01 February 2015 07:46:21PM *  6 points [-]

Yes, I designed them, and they were verified by GK's engineers. The individual nanobots are all connected to GPS and get up-to-date information from the CDC. These sort of details are how I lost tons of time. ^^

I know in real life that would be akin to AI out of the box. However Mr. Eliezer's basic rules say it doesn't count. ^^

Comment author: hydkyll 01 February 2015 08:05:30PM 2 points [-]

However Mr. Eliezer's basic rules say it doesn't count.

Ah, I see. Didn't know the rules were so strict. (Btw shouldn't it be "Mr. Yudkowsky"?)

Comment author: hydkyll 01 February 2015 07:38:25PM 4 points [-]

nanobots released into the atmosphere

Wait, were you allowed to design them yourself? (The timestamp is in UTC iirc.)

Comment author: hydkyll 10 November 2014 12:43:13PM 3 points [-]

Is there actually good AI research somewhere in Europe? (Apart from what the FHI is doing.) Or: can the mission for FAI benefit at all from me doing my PhD at the AI lab of some university? (Which is my plan currently.)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 November 2014 06:00:29PM 2 points [-]

What language will proceedings generally be conducted in? Alas, the only one I speak is English.

Comment author: hydkyll 09 November 2014 10:44:49PM 3 points [-]

What language will proceedings generally be conducted in?

English, of course.

View more: Next