I meant literally, "Make people happy," in those words, maybe with an, "Ask people what makes them happy," tacked on or hardcoded in. If the system truly understands natural language and is even quasi-intelligent, then we can use the system's own intelligence to derive the complicated messy details as to what makes people happy by having the system ask people for their preferences and actually listen to and think about what they tell it -- especially if they take the time to correct it because it messed up and did the wrong thing. When you raise a child, you teach the child what's expected of it. Children don't come with that built in. They have to be taught. The difference is, children have value in and of themselves, and they have many goals in addition to making Mom or Dad happy. This system would only have value derived from its service to humanity (meaning it doesn't itself deserve moral consideration, since it's just a tool) and it's one and only goal would be to make its creators happy, in whatever way they define that.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > So why wouldn't we design a system that attempts to attain a nice simple > > goal like "make people happy" and build in the awareness that in order to > > define that goal in all its complexity, it needs to *ask* us what we > want. > > Because that's not a shortcut. The goal "make people happy" is not > nice and simple. It is 10^17 bits, unless you mean make people happy > by giving them drugs or inserting an electrode into the nucleus > accumbens. > > > Then the system iteratively refines that goal as new information comes > in at > > the measly rate of "1 to 5 bits per second through > > speech, writing, or typing", as time is available and the need arises, > > making do with a less individualized but still highly effective > definition > > of the general goal in the meantime. People recognize the value of > > information vs. the time it takes to communicate it, and will point out > the > > most inconvenient misunderstandings first, so the system can rely on the > > users to selectively identify and convey the information it needs to > know in > > order to meet their needs. In other words, if you want the system to be > > individualized to your preferences, you pay the cost of gathering & > > transmitting a description of your preferences. This is the current model > > for all those apps you mention: you go to the preferences page and check > the > > boxes according to what you prefer. In the future, it will be > communicated > > via natural language, but it will be the same principle at work. > > I thought we were already doing that. But yes, the cost of > communicating our preferences will be the most expensive part of AGI > once Moore's Law makes the hardware cheap enough. (Right now, it would > cost $1 quintillion if you could buy it. In 15 years the same > computing power should cost $1 quadrillion, low enough to make it cost > effective to replace most human labor). Natural language is better > than filling out an online survey. Observing your behavior is better > still. Guessing based on the preferences of other people with similar > behavior is better still. We already do all of these things because it > is so expensive. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4 > 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/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
