jacoblyles
108
37
Oh sure, there are plenty of other religions as dangerous as the SIAI. It's just strange to see one growing here among highly intelligent people who spend a ton of time discussing the flaws in human reasoning that lead to exactly this kind of behavior.
However, there are ideologies that don't contain shards of infinite utility, or that contain a precautionary principle that guards against shards of infinite utility that crop up. They'll say things like "don't trust your reasoning if it leads you to do awful things" (again, compare that to "s...
Nevermind the fact that LW actually believes that uFAI has infinitely negative utility and that FAI has infinitely positive utility (see arguments for why SIAI is the optimal charity). That people conclude that acts that most people would consider immoral are justified by this reasoning, well I don't know where they got that from. Certainly not these pages.
Ordinarily, I would count on people's unwillingness to act on any belief they hold that is too far outside the social norm. But that kind of thinking is irrational, and irrational restraint has a bad re...
We should try to pick up "moreright.com" from whoever owns it. It's domain-parked at the moment.
The principles espoused by the majority on this site can be used to justify some very, very bad actions.
1) The probability of someone inventing AI is high
2) The probability of someone inventing unfriendly AI if they are not associated with SIAI is high
3) The utility of inventing unfriendly AI is negative MAXINT
4) "Shut up and calculate" - trust the math and not your gut if your utility calculations tell you to do something that feels awful.
It's not hard to figure out that Less Wrong's moral code supports some very, unsavory, actions.
Fortunately, the United States has a strong evangelical Christian lobby that fights for and protects home schooling freedom.
...And you just blew your cover. :)
Nobody of any importance reads Less Wrong :)
I'm pretty sure they are sourced from census data. I check the footnotes on websites like that.
Tagline: Coursera for high school
Mission: The economist Eric Hanushek has shown that if the USA could replace the worst 7% of K-12 teachers with merely average teachers, it would have the best education system in the world. What if we instead replaced the bottom 90% of teachers in every country with great instruction?
The Company: Online learning startups like Coursera and Udacity are in the process of showing how technology can scale great teaching to large numbers of university students (I've written about the mechanics of this elsewhere). Let's bring a ...
Out of wedlock birth rates have exploded with sexual freedom:
-http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/205/four-in-10-children-are-born-to-unwed-mothers
Marriage is way down:
If an AGI research group were close to success but did not respect friendly AI principles, should the government shut them down?
I'm glad I found this comment. I suffer from an intense feeling of cognitive dissonance when I browse LW and read the posts which sound sensible (like this one) and contradictory posts like the dust specks. I hear "don't use oversimplified morality!" and then I read a post about torturing people because summing utilons told you it was the correct answer. Mind=>blown.
Welcome!
The least attractive thing about the rationalist life-style is nihilism. It's there, it's real, and it's hard to handle. Eliezer's solution is to be happy and the nihilism will leave you alone. But if you have a hard life, you need a way to spontaneously generate joy. That's why so many people turn to religion as a comfort when they are in bad situations.
The problem that I find is that all ways to spontaneously generate joy have some degree of mysticism. I'm looking into Tai Chi as a replacement for going to church. But that's still eastern mumbo...
It's interesting that we view those who do make the tough decisions as virtuous - i.e. the commander in a war movie (I'm thinking of Bill Adama). We recognize that it is a hard but valuable thing to do!
This reminds me of a thought I had recently - whether or not God exists, God is coming - as long as humans continue to make technological progress. Although we may regret it (for one, brief instant) when he gets here. Of course, our God will be bound by the laws of the universe, unlike the Theist God.
The Christian God is an interesting God. He's something of a utilitarian. He values joy and created humans in a joyful state. But he values freedom over joy. He wanted humans to be like himself, living in joy but having free will. Joy is beautiful to him, but...
A common problem that faces humans is that they often have to choose between two different things that they value (such as freedom vs. equality), without an obvious way to make a numerical comparison between the two. How many freeons equal one egaliton? It's certainly inconvenient, but the complexity of value is a fundamentally human feature.
It seems to me that it will be very hard to come up with utility functions for fAI that capture all the things that humans find valuable in life. The topology of the systems don't match up.
Is this a design failure? I'm not so sure. I'm not sold on the desirability of having an easily computable value function.
This is a great framework - very clear! Thanks!
Sorry, "meaning of life" is sloppy phrasing. "What is the meaning of life?" is popular shorthand for "what is worth doing? what is worth pursuing?". It is asking about what is ultimately valuable, and how it relates to how I choose to live.
It's interesting that we are imagining AIs to be immune from this. It is a common human obsession (though maybe only among unhappy humans?). An AI isn't distracted by contradictory values like a human is then, it never has to make hard choices? No choices at all really, just the output of the argmax expected utility function?
I follow the virtue-ethics approach, I do actions that make me like the person that I want to be. The acquisition of any virtue requires practice, and holding open the door for old ladies is practice for being altruistic. If I weren't altruistic, then I wouldn't be making myself into the person I want to be.
It's a very different framework from util maximization, but I find it's much more satisfying and useful.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying.
For humans, the value of some outcome is a point in multidimensional value space, whose axes include things like pleasure, love, freedom, anti-suffering, and etc. There is no easy way to compare points at different coordinates. Human values are complex.
For a being with a utility function, it has a way to take any outcome and put a scalar value on it, such that different outcomes can be compared.
We don't have anything like that. We can adjust how much we value any one dimension in value space, even discover ne...
It's true that lots of Utilitarianisms have corner cases where they support action that would normally considered awful. But most of them involve highly hypothetical scenarios that seldom happen, such as convicting an innocent man to please a mob.
The problem with LW/SIAI is that the moral monstrosities they support are much more actionable. Today, there are dozens of companies working on AI research. LW/SIAI believes that their work will be of infinite negative utility if they are successful before Eliezer invents FAI theory and he convinces them that he'... (read more)