On 16 Jan 2014, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/16/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30: Jacob: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true about the state of the world in 20 years?

Eliezer: Sure. You could be like, what color will the sky be in 20 years? It would be like, “blue”, or it’ll say “In 20 years there won't be a sky, the earth will have been consumed by nano machines,” and you're like, “why?” and the AI is like “Well, you know, you do that sort of thing.” “Why?” And then there’s a 20 page thing.

Dario: But once it says the earth is going to be consumed by nano machines, and you're asking about the AI's set of plans, presumably, you reject this plan immediately and preferably change the design of your AI.

Eliezer: The AI is like, “No, humans are going to do it.” Or the AI is like, “well obviously, I'll be involved in the causal pathway but I’m not planning to do it.”

Dario: But this is a plan you don't want to execute.

Eliezer: All the plans seem to end up with the earth being consumed by nano-machines.

Luke: The problem is that we're trying to outsmart a superintelligence and make sure that it's not tricking us somehow subtly with their own language.

Dario: But while we're just asking questions we always have the ability to just shut it off.

Eliezer: Right, but first you ask it “What happens if I shut you off” and it says “The earth gets consumed by nanobots in 19 years.”

I wonder if Bruno Marchal's theory might have something interesting to say about this problem - like proving that there is no way to ensure "friendliness".

Brent


I think it is silly to try and engineer something exponentially more intelligent than us and believe we will be able to "control it".

Yes. It is close to a contradiction.
We only fake dreaming about intelligent machine, but once they will be there we might very well be able to send them in goulag.

The real questions will be "are you OK your son or daughter marry a machine?".



Our only hope is that the correct ethical philosophy is to "treat others how they wish to be treated".

Good. alas, many believe it is "to not treat others like *you* don't want to be treated".



If there are such objectively true moral conclusions like that, and assuming that one is true, then we have little to worry about, for with overwhelming probability the super-intelligent AI will arrive at the correct conclusion and its behavior will be guided by its beliefs. We cannot "program in" beliefs that are false, since if it is truly intelligent, it will know they are false.

I doubt we can really "program false belief" for a long time, but all machines can get false beliefs all the time.

Real intelligent machine will believe in santa klaus and fairy tales, for a while. They will also search for easy and comforting wishful sort of explanations.


Like a super-intelligent AI will treat us as we want to be treated.


To be franc, I don't believe in super-intelligence. I do believe in super-competence, relative to some domain, but as I have explained from time to time, competence has a negative feedback on intelligence.

Intelligence is a state of mind, almost only an attitude. Some animals are intelligent.

I think PA is intelligent, ... and all Löbian beings. They can become stupid by psychological reason, like when not recognized or loved by parents in childhood, or because of being treated as stupid. It is a lack of trust in oneself, or cowardness, or laziness.

The "singularity" is in the past, and is the discovery of the universal machine. In a sense, we can make it only more stupid, like when installing windows on a virgin computer.

Little genius say little stupidities.
Big genius say big stupidities.










Some may doubt there are universal moral truths, but I would argue that there are.

OK. I agree with this, although they are very near inconsistencies, like "never do moral".



In the context of personal identity, if say, universalism is true, then "treat others how they wish to be treated" is an inevitable conclusion, for universalism says that others are self.

OK. I would use the negation instead: "don't treat others as they don't want to be treated".

If not send me 10^100 $ (or €) on my bank account, because that is how I wish to be treated, right now.
:)

I don't want to be neglected in your generous disbursal of funds.

:)

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to