Or not understanding how involved such a definition would be
Why do you think I used the word “non-trivial”? Are you not aware that in technical fields “non-trivial” means “difficult”?
if I seen that it would, I would be even more against SI because this is precisely the research for creating the dangerous AI, set up by a philosopher who has been given access to funds to hire qualified people to do something that’s entirely pointless and only creates risk where there was none
It’s dangerous because it’s more powerful than other types of AI? If so, why would it be “entirely pointless”, and why do you think other AI researchers won’t eventually invent the same ideas (which seems to be implied by “creates risk where there was none”)?
In case you weren’t aware, I myself have arguedagainst SIAI pushing forward decision theory at this time, so I’m not trying to undermine your conclusion but just find your argument wrong, or at least confusing.
Why do you think I used the word “non-trivial”? Are you not aware that in technical fields “non-trivial” means “difficult”?
I didn’t state disagreement with you. I stated my disdain for most of LW community which just glosses it out as a detail not worth discussing. edit: or worse yet as inherent part of any ‘AI’.
It’s dangerous because it’s more powerful than other types of AI?
“Powerful” is a bad concept. I wouldn’t expect it to be a better problem solver for things like ‘how to make a better microchip’, but perhaps it could be a better problem solver for ‘how to hack internet’ because it is unethical but can come up with the idea and be ‘motivated’ to do it, while others aren’t. (I do not think that UDT is relevant to the difficult issues there—fortunately)
and why do you think other AI researchers won’t eventually invent the same ideas
The ideas in question (to the extent to which they are developed by SI so far) are trivial. They are also entirely useless for solving problems like how to make a better microchip, or how to drive a car. I do not expect non-SI funded research into automated problem solving to try to work out this kind of stuff, due to it’s uselessness. (note: the implementation of such ideas would be highly non trivial for anything like ‘real world paperclips with the intelligence module not solving the problem of breaking the paperclip counter’).
Why do you think I used the word “non-trivial”? Are you not aware that in technical fields “non-trivial” means “difficult”?
It’s dangerous because it’s more powerful than other types of AI? If so, why would it be “entirely pointless”, and why do you think other AI researchers won’t eventually invent the same ideas (which seems to be implied by “creates risk where there was none”)?
In case you weren’t aware, I myself have argued against SIAI pushing forward decision theory at this time, so I’m not trying to undermine your conclusion but just find your argument wrong, or at least confusing.
I didn’t state disagreement with you. I stated my disdain for most of LW community which just glosses it out as a detail not worth discussing. edit: or worse yet as inherent part of any ‘AI’.
“Powerful” is a bad concept. I wouldn’t expect it to be a better problem solver for things like ‘how to make a better microchip’, but perhaps it could be a better problem solver for ‘how to hack internet’ because it is unethical but can come up with the idea and be ‘motivated’ to do it, while others aren’t. (I do not think that UDT is relevant to the difficult issues there—fortunately)
The ideas in question (to the extent to which they are developed by SI so far) are trivial. They are also entirely useless for solving problems like how to make a better microchip, or how to drive a car. I do not expect non-SI funded research into automated problem solving to try to work out this kind of stuff, due to it’s uselessness. (note: the implementation of such ideas would be highly non trivial for anything like ‘real world paperclips with the intelligence module not solving the problem of breaking the paperclip counter’).