An entity whose utility function is time-inconsistent will choose to modify
itself into an entity whose utility function is time-consistent [...]
Here the agent wants different things under different circumstances -
which is perfectly permissable. Before the button is pressed,
it wants to do its day job, and after the button is pressed, it is
happy to let engineers dismantle its brain (or whetever).
You can’t “money-pump” a machine just because you can switch it off!
Also: many worlds? self-improvement? If this thread is actually about making
a machine indifferent, those seems like unnecessary complications—not caring is just not that difficult.
An AI can worm itself into human society in such a way the “off switch”
becomes useless; trying to turn it off will precipitate a disaster.
Maybe—if people let it—or if people want it to do that. An off switch
isn’t a magical solution to all possible problems. Google has an off switch -
but few can access it. Microsoft had an off switch—but sadly nobody
pressed it. Anyway, this is getting away from modelling indifference.
Do you understand that paper yourself? That paper is about general drives that agents will tend to exhibit—unless their utility function explicity tells them to behave otherwise. Having a utility function that tells you to do something different once a button has been pressed clearly fits into the latter category.
An example of an agent that wants different things under different circumstances is a fertile woman. Before she is pregnant, she wants one set of things, and after she is pregnant, she wants other, different things. However, her utility function hasn’t changed, just the circumstances in which she finds herself.
Can you make money from her by buying kids toys from her before she gets pregnant and selling them back to her once she has kids? Maybe so—if she didn’t know whether she was going to get pregnant or not—and that is perfectly OK.
Remember that the point of a stop button is usually as a safety feature. If you want your machine to make as much money for you as possible, by all means leave it turned on. However, if you want to check it is doing OK, at regular intervals, you should expect to pay some costs for the associated downtime.
Can I remind you what we are talking about; not about a single stop button, but about a “utility function” that is constantly modified whenever new information comes in. That’s the kind of weakness that will lead to systematic money pumping. The situation is more analogous to me being able to constantly change whether a woman is pregnant and back again, and buying and selling her children’s toys each time. I can do that, by the information presented to the AI. And the AI, no matter how smart, will be useless at resisting that, until the moment where it 1) stops being a utility maximiser or 2) fixes its utility function.
It’s not the fact the utility function is changing that is the problem, so self improving AI is fine. It’s the fact that its systematically changing in response to predictable inputs.
Can I remind you what we are talking about; not about a single stop button, but about a “utility function” that is constantly modified whenever new information comes in.
After backtracking—to try and understand what it is that you think we are talking about -
I think I can see what is going on here.
...you were using “utility” as abbreviation for “utility function”!
That would result in a changing utility function, and—in that context -
your comments make sense.
However, that represents a simple implementation mistake. You don’t
implement indifference by using a constantly-changing utility function.
What changes—in order to make the utility of being switched off track the utility
of being switched on—is just the utility associated with being switched off.
The utility function just has a component which says: “the expected utility
of being stopped is the same as if not stopped”. The utility
function always says that—and doesn’t change, regardless of sensory
inputs or whether the stop button has been pressed.
What changes is the utility—not the utility function. That is what
you wrote—but was apparently not what you meant—thus the confusion.
Yes, I apologise for the confusion. But what I showed in my post was that implementing “the expected utility of being stopped is the same as if not stopped” has to be done in a cunning way (the whole thing about histories having the same stem) or else extra information will get rid of indifference.
Here the agent wants different things under different circumstances - which is perfectly permissable. Before the button is pressed, it wants to do its day job, and after the button is pressed, it is happy to let engineers dismantle its brain (or whetever).
You can’t “money-pump” a machine just because you can switch it off!
Also: many worlds? self-improvement? If this thread is actually about making a machine indifferent, those seems like unnecessary complications—not caring is just not that difficult.
Maybe—if people let it—or if people want it to do that. An off switch isn’t a magical solution to all possible problems. Google has an off switch - but few can access it. Microsoft had an off switch—but sadly nobody pressed it. Anyway, this is getting away from modelling indifference.
See http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf where he argues why a general self-improving AI will seek to make a time consistent utility function.
Do you understand that paper yourself? That paper is about general drives that agents will tend to exhibit—unless their utility function explicity tells them to behave otherwise. Having a utility function that tells you to do something different once a button has been pressed clearly fits into the latter category.
An example of an agent that wants different things under different circumstances is a fertile woman. Before she is pregnant, she wants one set of things, and after she is pregnant, she wants other, different things. However, her utility function hasn’t changed, just the circumstances in which she finds herself.
Can you make money from her by buying kids toys from her before she gets pregnant and selling them back to her once she has kids? Maybe so—if she didn’t know whether she was going to get pregnant or not—and that is perfectly OK.
Remember that the point of a stop button is usually as a safety feature. If you want your machine to make as much money for you as possible, by all means leave it turned on. However, if you want to check it is doing OK, at regular intervals, you should expect to pay some costs for the associated downtime.
Yes.
Can I remind you what we are talking about; not about a single stop button, but about a “utility function” that is constantly modified whenever new information comes in. That’s the kind of weakness that will lead to systematic money pumping. The situation is more analogous to me being able to constantly change whether a woman is pregnant and back again, and buying and selling her children’s toys each time. I can do that, by the information presented to the AI. And the AI, no matter how smart, will be useless at resisting that, until the moment where it 1) stops being a utility maximiser or 2) fixes its utility function.
It’s not the fact the utility function is changing that is the problem, so self improving AI is fine. It’s the fact that its systematically changing in response to predictable inputs.
After backtracking—to try and understand what it is that you think we are talking about - I think I can see what is going on here.
When you wrote:
...you were using “utility” as abbreviation for “utility function”!
That would result in a changing utility function, and—in that context - your comments make sense.
However, that represents a simple implementation mistake. You don’t implement indifference by using a constantly-changing utility function. What changes—in order to make the utility of being switched off track the utility of being switched on—is just the utility associated with being switched off.
The utility function just has a component which says: “the expected utility of being stopped is the same as if not stopped”. The utility function always says that—and doesn’t change, regardless of sensory inputs or whether the stop button has been pressed.
What changes is the utility—not the utility function. That is what you wrote—but was apparently not what you meant—thus the confusion.
Yes, I apologise for the confusion. But what I showed in my post was that implementing “the expected utility of being stopped is the same as if not stopped” has to be done in a cunning way (the whole thing about histories having the same stem) or else extra information will get rid of indifference.