LESSWRONG
LW

All of michael's Comments + Replies

Without models
michael00

Great post! It clears up many of my misunderstandings and misconceptions I had after reading your last one.

I certainly have to agree, my concept of a implicit model is very problematic. And control systems are creepy!

Reply
What is control theory, and why do you need to know about it?
michael90

Isn’t a model of the outside world built in – implicit – in the robot’s design? Surely it has no explicit knowledge of the outside world, yet it was built in a certain way so that it can counteract outside forces. Randomly throwing together a robot most certainly will not get you such a behaviour – but design (or evolution!) will give you a robot with a implicit model of the outside world (maybe at some point one who can formulate explicit models). I wouldn’t be so fast and just throw away the notion of a model.

I find the perspective very intriguing, but I... (read more)

Reply
5Richard_Kennaway
Certainly I, as the designer, had a model of the robot and its environment when I wrote that program, and the program implements those models. But the robot itself has no model of its environment. It calculates the positions of its feet, relative to itself, by sensing its joint angles, knowing the lengths of its limb segments and calculating, so it does have a fairly limited model of itself: it knows its own dimensions. However, it does not know its own mass, or the characteristics of its sensors and actuators. The fact that it works does not mean that it has an "implicit" model of the environment: "implicit", in a context like this, means "not". What is a model? A model is a piece of mathematics in which certain quantities correspond to certain properties of the thing modelled, and certain mathematical relationships between these correspond to certain physical relationships. Maxwell's equations model electromagnetic phenomena. The Newton-Raphson (EDIT: I meant Navier-Stokes) equation models fluid flow. "Implicit model" is what one says, when one expects to find a model and finds none. The robot's environment contains a simulated wind pushing on the robot, and a simulated hand giving it a shove. The robot knows nothing of this: there is no variable in the part of the program that deals with the robot's sensors, actuators, and control algorithms that represents the forces acting on it. The robot no more models its environment than a thermostat models the room outside it. Since it is possible to build systems that achieve goals without models, and also possible, but in general rather more complicated, to build such systems that do use models, I do not think that the blind god of evolution is likely to have put models anywhere. It has come up with something -- us, and probably the higher animals -- that can make models, but nothing currently persuades me that models are how brains must work. I see no need of that hypothesis. I'd rather like to build that robot. If I
Excuse me, would you like to take a survey?
michael20

Why ask for political parties? Political views are complicated, if all you can do is pick a party this complexity is lost. All those not from the US (like myself) might additionally have a hard time picking a party.

Those are not easy problems to solve and it is certainly questionable if thinking of some more specific questions about political views and throwing them all together will get you meaningful reliable and valid results. As long as you cannot do better than that asking just for preferred political parties is certainly good enough.

Reply
1outlawpoet
Yes, it might be more useful to list some wedge issues that usually divide the parties in the US.
You May Already Be A Sinner
michael20

Again, that is certainly true.

But the Calvinist who decides to live a sinful life visibly violates the rules. Even a dumb God who only sets up a simple list of rules and who parses your behaviour only according to that list would notice that. I have certainly no doubts about the possibility of finding holes in the rules of God so that you would certify as virtuous even if other humans would most likely not see you that way.

But as long as prediction is concerned there is no outwitting. If you find holes in the rules that is not the same as finding out where... (read more)

Reply
You May Already Be A Sinner
michael10

Yes, certainly, but that is besides the point. This problem here is about actually violating the rules and the question as to whether you can get away with it.

Reply
4[anonymous]
And it still depends on the nature of the the omniscient being in question. Having enough information does not make you make wise choices. If you happen to know how the God thinks you can answer for sure whether or not you can outwit him. As you said yourself, "I think we should strive to know others models of our decision making and know when these models break down. That could be useful." This applies to omniscient yet fallible Gods as well. Heck, you can know the entire state of the universe at all times and still not understand the Calvinist problem. In that case, dumbfounding the idiot god is trivial.
You May Already Be A Sinner
michael20

Can one say that the God of the Calvinists as well as the alien of Newcomb’s Problem have the ability to perfectly predict (at least specific things about) the future?

And isn’t having that ability exactly the same as having a crystal ball that actually can look into the future? Isn’t then being able to predict the future with 100 percent certainty the same as having the ability to actually look into the future? Then, I think, it might be possible to say that the God or alien cannot be outwitted. Anything you do – no matter what – has been correctly predict... (read more)

Reply
0[anonymous]
Not so. While you can never surprise a God that can perfectly predict the future, you may certainly outwit him. If the God limits his 'rules' to that which could be written on say, a few stone tablets then it is certainly possible to manouver around them. Alternatively, the God in question may be omniscient yet stupid. I've seen plenty of humans who will not change their strategy when confonted with absolute and trasparent proof that their strategy is flawed and will not work. I see no reason why a God could not do the same thing.