Mazianni
46
30
1
Mazianni has not written any posts yet.
Mazianni has not written any posts yet.
My intuition is that you got down voted for the lack of clarity about whether you're responding to me [my raising the potential gap in assessing outcomes for self-driving], or the article I referenced.
For my part, I also think that coning-as-protest is hilarious.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was your intention (and not contribute to downvotes myself.) Cheers.
It expand on what dkirmani said
- Holz was allowed to drive discussion...
- This standard set of responses meant that Holz knew ...
- Another pattern was Holz asserting
- 24:00 Discussion of Kasparov vs. the World. Holz says
Or to quote dkirmani
4 occurrences of "Holz"
To be clear, are you arguing that assuming a general AI system to be able to reason in a similar way is anthropomorphizing (invalidly)?
No, instead I'm trying to point out the contradiction inherent in your position...
On the one hand, you say things like this, which would be read as "changing an instrumental goal in order to better achieve a terminal goal"
You and I can both reason about whether or not we would be happier if we chose to pursue different goals than the ones we are now
And on the other you say
I dislike the way that "terminal" goals are currently defined to be absolute and permanent, even under reflection.
Even in your "we... (read more)
I don't know that there is a single counter argument, but I would generalize across two groupings:
Arguments from the first group of religious people involve those who are capable of applying rationality to their belief systems, when pressed. For those, if they espouse a "god will save us" (in the physical world) then I'd suggest the best way to approach them is to call out the contradiction between their stated beliefs--e.g., Ask first "do you believe that god gave man free will?" and if so "wouldn't saving us from our bad choices obviate free will?"
That's just an example, first and foremost though, you cannot hand wave away their religious belief system. You... (read more)
One question that comes to mind is, how would you define this difference in terms of properties of utility functions? How does the utility function itself "know" whether a goal is terminal or instrumental?
I would observe that partial observability makes answering this question extraordinarily difficult. We lack interpretability tools that would give us the ability to know, with any degree of certainty, whether a set of behaviors are an expression of an instrumental or terminal goal.
Likewise, I would observe that the Orthogonality Thesis proposes the possibility of an agent which a very well defined goal but limited in intelligence-- it is possible for an agent to have a very well defined goal... (read 603 more words →)
A fair point. I should have originally said "Humans do not generally think..."
Thank you for raising that exceptions are possible and that are there philosophies that encourage people to release the pursuit of happiness, focus solely internally and/or transcend happiness.
(Although, I think it is still reasonable to argue that these are alternate pursuits of "happiness", these examples drift too far into philosophical waters for me to want to debate the nuance. I would prefer instead to concede simply that there is more nuance than I originally stated.)
First, thank you for the reply.
So "being happy" or "being a utility-maximizer" will probably end up being a terminal goal, because those are unlikely to conflict with any other goals.
My understanding of the difference between a "terminal" and "instrumental" goal is that a terminal goal is something we want, because we just want it. Like wanting to be happy.
Whereas an instrumental goal is instrumental to achieving a terminal goal. For instance, I want to get a job and earn a decent wage, because the things that I want to do that make me happy cost money, and earning a decent wage allows me to spend more money on the things that make... (read more)
Whoever downvoted... would you do me the courtesy of expressing what you disagree with?
Did I miss some reference to public protests in the original article? (If so, can you please point me towards what I missed?)
Do you think public protests will have zero effect on self-driving outcomes? (If so, why?)
An AI can and will modify its own goals (as do we / any intelligent agent) under certain circumstances, e.g., that its current goals are impossible.
This sounds like you are conflating shift in terminal goal with introduction of new instrumental (temporary) goals.
Humans don't think "I'm not happy today, and I can't see a way to be happy, so I'll give up the goal of wanting to be happy."
Humans do think "I'm not happy today, so I'm going to quit my job, even though I have no idea how being unemployed is going to make me happier. At least I won't be made unhappy by my job."
(The balance of your comment seems dependent... (read more)
I understand where you're going, but doctors, parents, firefighters are not possessing of 'typical godlike attributes' such as omniscience and omnipotence and a declaration of intent not to use such powers in a way that would obviate free will.
Nothing about humans saving other humans using fallible human means is remotely the same as a god changing the laws of physics to effect a miracle. And one human taking actions does not obviate the free will of another human. But when God can, through omnipotence, set up scenarios so that you have no choice at all... obviating free will... its a different class of thing all together.
So your responds reads like strawman fallacy to me.
In conclusion: I accept that my position isn't convincing for you.