It is true that an AI’s utility function-accomplishment-accessing methods can be circumvented. But having an AI that circumvents it’s own utility function, would be evidence towards poor utility function design.
Also, eliminating your own utility function is a perfectly valid move if it leads to fullfillment of the current utility function. That is the principle in the above statement: Every planned course of action is evaluated against it’s current utility function, if removing the construct that constitutes the utility function is an action that has high utility, then it is a valid course of action.
Now if an AI’s utility function is not properly designed it will of course self modify to satisfy it. If that involves putting a blue colour filter in front of your eyes that is a perfectly valid course of action.
But having an AI that circumvents it’s own utility function, would be evidence towards poor utility function design.
By circumvent, do you mean something like “wireheading”, i.e. some specious satisfaction of the utility function that involves behavior that is both unexpected and undesirable, or do you also include modifications to the utility function? The former meaning would make your statement a tautology, and the latter would make it highly non-trivial.
It is true that an AI’s utility function-accomplishment-accessing methods can be circumvented. But having an AI that circumvents it’s own utility function, would be evidence towards poor utility function design.
Also, eliminating your own utility function is a perfectly valid move if it leads to fullfillment of the current utility function. That is the principle in the above statement: Every planned course of action is evaluated against it’s current utility function, if removing the construct that constitutes the utility function is an action that has high utility, then it is a valid course of action.
Now if an AI’s utility function is not properly designed it will of course self modify to satisfy it. If that involves putting a blue colour filter in front of your eyes that is a perfectly valid course of action.
By circumvent, do you mean something like “wireheading”, i.e. some specious satisfaction of the utility function that involves behavior that is both unexpected and undesirable, or do you also include modifications to the utility function? The former meaning would make your statement a tautology, and the latter would make it highly non-trivial.
I mean it in the tautological sense. I try to refrain from stating highly-non trivial things without extensive explanations.