LESSWRONG
LW

All of almostvoid's Comments + Replies

Superintelligence 28: Collaboration
almostvoid-30

the over complications, the suppositions in all areas, the assumptions of certain outcomes, the complex logic of spaghetti minded mental convulsions to make a point. It all misses the essence of AI in whatever form. I ran into this at uni doing philslophy-logic and couldn't be philosophical about the proposed propositions. I cheated to pass. It is the same - more erudite - here and the book in general. Creating more forests and hiding the trees. Still it's a learning curve.

Reply
Superintelligence 28: Collaboration
almostvoid00

since men are wired to mate diversely then obviously the recipient must feel the same not different. I mean it takes 2 to tango. I've met women who wanted to ** with me and once asked the proponent that I had a lover and she said: so what? Lesson over.

Reply
Superintelligence 26: Science and technology strategy
almostvoid-30

prosperity going even incrementally onwards as a for-ever process is impossible to maintain. This happened nearly 80 yrs ago with the big Crash [1929] when the perfect socity [USA] couldn't save itself from a mega disaster of major proportions. Yet across the Atlantic neither Italy nor Germany [after 33] suffered. So it is a matter of applying collective intelligence to this reward system. The 1950s achieved a dream run that stalled 20 yrs later and the oil shock was a symptom not a cause. Collective failure was the debilitating source of this slow down. D... (read more)

Reply
Superintelligence 24: Morality models and "do what I mean"
almostvoid-20

we don't talk about red lights for a train having made a moral decision. i don't think even in AI it applies. if it does than i'd be worried about the humans who offload thinking-decision making to a machine mind. anyway that entity will never comprehend anything per se because it will never be sentient in the broadest sense. I can't see it being an issue. Dropping the atom bomb didn't worry anybody.

Reply
5Viliam_Bur
Different pieces of software have different quality. Websites are usually on the crappy end of the scale. Central parts of operating systems are towards the opposite end. Also, many commercial products are developed with little testing. But there are methodologies for better testing, even mathematical proofs of correctness. Those are usually not used in commercial development, because they require some time and qualification, and companies prefer to hire cheap coders and have the product soon, even if it is full of bugs. And generally, because software companies are usually managed Dilbert-style. However, it is possible to have mathematical proofs about algorithm correctness (any decent university teaches these methods as parts of informatics), so in these debates it is usually assumed that people who would develop an AI would use these methods. To a person who knows this, your comment sounds a bit like: "my childhood toy broke easily, therefore it is impossible to ever build a railway that would not fall apart below the weight of a train".
Superintelligence 20: The value-loading problem
almostvoid-40

I wonder [read the book got the t-shirt & sticker] if it really is -generally- all so complex. I mean a lot of the imputations are anthropomorphic. Machines are dead brains that are switched on. There is nothing else. Unless mimickry which might con some people some of the time. 2001 the movie was still the closest to a machine thinking along certain logic lines. As for rebelling robots, independent machine inteliigences [unless hybrid brain interfaces] I cannot forsee anything in this book that is even relevant. Nice thought experiments though. I am finished. This is it.

Reply
Superintelligence 18: Life in an algorithmic economy
almostvoid00

In a way happiness is ingrained into specific personality types. My neighbour - next flat - is amazingly happy even after she locked herself out and I tried to break in for her. That happiness can only be duplicated with good drugs. Then there is attitude. I was in India [not as a 5 * tourist either] and found they were content [a bit less than happy] with their lives which compared to ours was a big obvious difference. Anyway it's a moot point as the Scandinavians won that round globally the last time because - social democracy works and it is not sociali... (read more)

Reply
0Capla
What makes you say that. I suppose I may be one of those people who is just luckily happy (though, I doubt it. I used to be a very angry person), but in my experience you can train happiness.
2Luke_A_Somers
You were doing all right until the end. Too many of the words in your last few sentences are used in ways that do not fit together to make sense in any conventional way, and when I try to parse them anyway, the emphases land in odd places. Try to use less jargon and rephrase?
1SteveG
Once thing going on here is that later discussion will be focused on recursively self-improving autonomous systems. We would like to know, for instance, whether and when software will be able to program other useful software. I am not ready to claim that spirituality is irrelevant to the discussion. The difference between factual knowledge, calculation speed and "wisdom" does seem relevant, as others have pointed out earlier in the thread. However, we'll have to re-frame questions about spiritual issues in some way to bring it in... Suppose one aspires to become a Bodhisatva-a being who is capable of entering into an unfettered celestial existence, but who instead stays behind to help other people and sentient beings find their way. (If we are a bit less ambitious, perhaps we might, depending on our tradition, aspire to become a tzadik, a marja, or saintly but not a supernatural savior). Among other things, the Bodhisatvas have removed themselves from ego and forms of physical desire. They are spiritually superior and ready to move outside of the cycle of reincarnation as lower beings. Yet, when they take the form of a human, they would eat as an instrumental goal toward accomplishing their end. The Bodhisatva's kind of spiritual superiority does seem to differ from what Bostrom and the rest of us call "Superintelligence." It may, however, relate in some ways... Just a thought experiment... For example, a peculiar version of a Bodhisatva might be said to have a utility function-in fact a marvelous, selfless utility function. Also, it will succeed at bringing more people out of the darkness if it engages in recursive self-improvement of its capabilities. One aspires to become a Buddha or a Bodhisatva, and the claim is made by some that they, others who they know, or historical figures have reached this condition. For the most part, however, this goal is aspirational in nature and works to improve people's behavior toward one another, and toward other sentient
0TRIZ-Ingenieur
I scored an IQ of 60 at school. I was thinking too complex around the corner. Same experience I had with a Microsoft "computer driving license" test. I totally failed because I answered based on my knowledge of IT forensic possibilities. E.g. Question: If you delete a file in Windows trash bin: Is the file recoverable? If you want to pass this test you have to give the wrong answer no. These examples show: We need cascaded test hierarchies: * classification test * test with adapted complexity level
8skeptical_lurker
Do you see a possible contradiction here?