And they think Aumann’s Agreement Theorem proves that we’d all be identical if only it weren’t for wetware limitations.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @literalbanana
Or, put another way, there is a unique optimal response to any input, and after the Singularity, we will do that.
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @literalbanana
Only given identical value functions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch @literalbanana
Yes… diversity of which does pose a problem for “coherent extrapolated volition”…
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Have you guys read the original doc? It tries to deal with this, eg p35 https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Don’t have time to read now, but will. I was sloppy and presumably wrong. Sorry!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Value differences + general underspecifiedness are definitely big problems for CEV
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stevenkaas @Meaningness and
but I think people have been aware of this, and it becomes a question of picking coherent parts
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevenkaas @Meaningness and
There have been attempts to make the extrapolation part more precisehttps://ordinaryideas.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/specifying-enlightened-judgment-precisely-reprise/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stevenkaas @Meaningness and
But that doesn't deal with coherence between different people/agents.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Original doc is probably out of date, not sure if there's anything to cite for current thinking
-
-
Replying to @stevenkaas @Meaningness and
I think there was a part of Bostrom's "Superintelligence" about general CEV space of proposals
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.