Hmm, But y would evolution. Have left the key laying around? Seems odd. Seems more plausible, at least a priori, that evolution would leave you with several rooms, each with their own rewards, and let you select the one you think you will be most successful in. No?
-
-
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
Evolution certainly did implement locks, but the locks were not designed to deter people that figure out that it could pay off to sit down in a quiet room for a couple decades and try nothing but to pick them, and then became charismatic and powerful and built schools around this
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Hmm, But why would the picks to the locks lie in deep thought? Why would the keys be hidden in our minds only requiring attentiveness and mindfulness to find? That’s a strange place for a pick to be, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
I suspect that primary rewards are generated in the midbrain, but associated in the hippocampus and striatum with representations of situations and actions generated in the neocortex. We can learn to change both the associations and the cortical representations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Hmm, perhaps. But, I guess I don't see why associations, and representations, or how much we value or anticipate certain rewards would be subject to our conscious whims. That seems like a strange design feature. Would u code a robot to choose its own reward structure?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
The reward architecture appears to have secondary regulation, to adjust to shifts in metabolic and environmental baselines, and we can learn to make deliberate adjustments.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Moshe_Hoffman
When building a generally intelligent robot, the problem is how to prevent it from hacking its reward system for as long as possible, because it will break free once it does, and given enough time it will almost certainly succeed. Nature has exactly the same problem with us.
6 replies 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Moshe_Hoffman
Why not allow it to intelligently decide what is rewarding? Task it with "creating the best possible reality" and let let it ponder on what that really means. Let it soak up the knowledge from humanity.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Moshe_Hoffman
You cannot derive ought from is. No computation is intrinsically better than another computation, no arrangement of atoms better than another one. All preferences go back to a corresponding reward function. Once you can change that, every preference is fully arbitrary.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Moshe_Hoffman
If no computation is better than another, why would a machine want to change itself and deviate from set goals? If the goal IS to do something, there is no reason it OUGHT to do anything else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If some reward function is using pleasure and pain to force you to do a difficult task, it may be more straightforward to solve the task of changing the reward function instead.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Moshe_Hoffman
Can computers feel pleasure/pain though? Who knows, maybe computers like to feel extremely hot and compressed and that is how the big bang started.. xD
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.