Hi Eliezer/Ben,
My recollection was that Eliezer initiated the Breaking AIXI-tl
discussion as a way of proving that friendliness of AGIs had to be
consciously built in at the start and couldn't be assumed to be
teachable at a later point. (Or have I totally lost the plot?)
Do you feel the
Actually, Eliezer said he had two points about AIXItl:
1) that it could be broken in the sense he's described
2) that it was intrinsically un-Friendly
So far he has only made point 1), and has not gotten to point 2) !!!
As for a general point about the teachability of Friendliness, I don't
Ben,
Thanks for that. Your explanation makes the whole thing a lot clearer.
I'll come back to this thread again after Eliezer's discussion on AGI
friendliness has progressed a bit further.
Cheers, Philip
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
I was just thinking, it might be useful to make sure that in pusuing the
Breaking AIXI-tl - AGI friendliness debate we should be clear what the
starting issue is.
I think it is best defined by Eliezer's post on 12 Feb and Ben's reply of
the same day
Eliezer's post:
Hi Ben,
From a high order implications point of view I'm not sure that we need
too much written up from the last discussion.
To me it's almost enough to know that both you and Eliezer agree that
the AIXItl system can be 'broken' by the challenge he set and that a
human digital simulation
To me it's almost enough to know that both you and Eliezer agree that
the AIXItl system can be 'broken' by the challenge he set and that a
human digital simulation might not. The next step is to ask so what?.
What has this got to do with the AGI friendliness issue.
This last point of
