i told you we agree ;)
-
-
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
But now take that understanding to the AI: clearly we can build systems tat achieve higher integrity with whatever purpose they identify with. Also, it can be moral for you to eat meat if animal suffering does not make animals moral subjects (= if you don’t share their purposes).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
being a hobby mathematician and programmer who is reasonably informed about machine learning, i strongly question the idea that we can build systems that have higher integrity. at least not along the paths of imitation that we are currently taking, and i know no other.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
I think that it is obviously much easier for our programs to have rational integrity than for us: that is perhaps the least of our problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
for routines with integrity, these are your practical options right now: 1. hardcoded set of rules. inflexible, very easy to construct fail cases against; does not have "integrity". 2. a trained set of choices; flexible, adaptive, yet not infallible & like (1), likely incomplete.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
if you wanted a machine with really good integrity, this machine would have to continously train itself with what humans of our day and age consider ethical, which, as i said before, is subject to culture, which changes continuously.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
Integrity just means functional consistency, and thus automatically includes the functions that regulate your purposes. You still seem to equate ethics with goodness, but it is just principled rationality to negotiate conflicts based on shared purposes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
okay, that is not my colloquial understanding of integrity, and if you phrase it like that, sure, i can build you a machine that is highly integral. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
My point is that I think you may not have had thought your colloquial concept of integrity through. I tried, and this is where it got me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
no, sure, i know that definition. i thought you meant the other one; you know, a man of integrity is someone who stands by his morals. which is by definition subjective. that subjectivity will express itself in a machine's programming or training as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Standing by your morals means that you have discovered a top level function that integrates all expected reward, and all your other agencies are accountable to it. Which is precisely what I have in mind with “integrity”.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
sounds all great in theory, i have yet to see that work nicely in practice. humans are self-revising, self-actualizing, revisionist mess that is very creative in reinventing past mistakes as "part of the plan".
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.