Is friendliness really so context-dependent? Do you have to be human to act friendly at the exception of acting busy, greedy, angry, etc? I think friendliness is a trait we project onto things pretty readily implying it's wired at some fundamental level. It comes from the social circuits, it's about being considerate or inocuous. But I don't know
On 8/25/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Will, > > I don't doubt that provable-friendliness is possible within limited, > well-defined domains that can be explicitly defined and hard-coded. I know > chess programs will never try to kill me. > > I don't believe however that you can prove friendliness within a framework > that has the robustness required to make sense of a dynamic, unstable world. > The basic problem, as I see it, is that "Friendliness" is a moving target, > and context dependent. It cannot be defined within the kind of rigorous > logical frameworks required to prove such a concept. > > Terren > > --- On Mon, 8/25/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You may be interested in goedel machines. I think this >> roughly fits >> the template that Eliezer is looking for, something that >> reliably self >> modifies to be better. >> >> http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html >> >> Although he doesn't like explicit utility functions, >> the provably >> better is something he want. Although what you would accept >> as axioms >> for the proofs upon which humanity fate rests I really >> don't know. >> >> Personally I think strong self-modification is not going to >> be useful, >> the very act of trying to understand the way the code for >> an >> intelligence is assembled will change the way that some of >> that code >> is assembled. That is I think that intelligences have to be >> weakly >> self modifying, in the same way bits of the brain rewire >> themselves >> locally and subconciously, so to, AI will need to have >> the same sort >> of changes in order to keep up with humans. Computers at >> the moment >> can do lots of things better that humans (logic, bayesian >> stats), but >> are really lousy at adapting and managing themselves so the >> blind >> spots of infallible computers are always exploited by slow >> and error >> prone, but changeable, humans. >> >> Will Pearson >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
