An algorithm may input data from all sources, internal and external. By contrast, an algorithm that only cares whether a decision is “right” can only input data from one source: an internal list of which decisions should be taken.
Thus, describing an algorithm as “concerned only with doing right” means that it will be updateless. Kant’s categorical imperative purports to be updateless in that Kant does not care what level of technology or population we have; according to Kant, a priori considerations about what it means to be human can and should fully determine our actions in all conceivable situations. JS Mill’s utilitarianism purports to deal with real-world consequences in that JS Mill cares a great deal about how things will turn out in practice and refuses to make predictions in advance about what kinds of things will be good for people to do. If I tell you that a decision algorithm Q is “concerned only with doing right,” you know that I might be talking about Kant but that I am definitely not talking about JS Mill. The description “concerned only with doing right” does real explanatory work.
By contrast, an algorithm that only cares whether a decision is “right” can only input data from one source: an internal list of which decisions should be taken. Thus, describing an algorithm as “concerned only with doing right” means that it will be updateless.
The right thing for the increment algorithm is to output its parameter increased by one.
I truly don’t understand, so if one of the six people silently downvoting me would be so kind as to offer a hint, I will gladly edit or delete, as appropriate.
I did not vote on any comments in this post. However, I believe the downvotes were because your tone sounds combative and supercilious, and you missed both Tyrrell’s point and Vladimir’s:
Your description of Tyrrell’s theory makes it sound like it changes the UDT algorithm to a GLUT, while Tyrrell was just proposing a new interpretation of the same algorithm
Vladimir meant his comment about the increment algorithm to show by example that an algorithm which is not updateless can be interpreted as doing something because it’s right just as easily as an updateless algorithm can.
Neither of these would’ve been judged so harshly if you hadn’t phrased your replies like you were addressing a learning-disabled child instead of an intelligent AI researcher.
Wrong.
An algorithm may input data from all sources, internal and external. By contrast, an algorithm that only cares whether a decision is “right” can only input data from one source: an internal list of which decisions should be taken.
Thus, describing an algorithm as “concerned only with doing right” means that it will be updateless. Kant’s categorical imperative purports to be updateless in that Kant does not care what level of technology or population we have; according to Kant, a priori considerations about what it means to be human can and should fully determine our actions in all conceivable situations. JS Mill’s utilitarianism purports to deal with real-world consequences in that JS Mill cares a great deal about how things will turn out in practice and refuses to make predictions in advance about what kinds of things will be good for people to do. If I tell you that a decision algorithm Q is “concerned only with doing right,” you know that I might be talking about Kant but that I am definitely not talking about JS Mill. The description “concerned only with doing right” does real explanatory work.
The right thing for the increment algorithm is to output its parameter increased by one.
Yes, you’ve finally got it. I don’t understand why you’re downvoting me for explaining a concept that you had trouble with.
I truly don’t understand, so if one of the six people silently downvoting me would be so kind as to offer a hint, I will gladly edit or delete, as appropriate.
I did not vote on any comments in this post. However, I believe the downvotes were because your tone sounds combative and supercilious, and you missed both Tyrrell’s point and Vladimir’s:
Your description of Tyrrell’s theory makes it sound like it changes the UDT algorithm to a GLUT, while Tyrrell was just proposing a new interpretation of the same algorithm
Vladimir meant his comment about the increment algorithm to show by example that an algorithm which is not updateless can be interpreted as doing something because it’s right just as easily as an updateless algorithm can.
Neither of these would’ve been judged so harshly if you hadn’t phrased your replies like you were addressing a learning-disabled child instead of an intelligent AI researcher.