I read it a while ago and I definitely don’t regret doing so.
I have no idea whether SIAI would still stand by it or disavow it at this point, but even if they think the central methodology is flawed there are still a lot of other arguments made which answer a lot of other questions e.g. ‘Wouldn’t an AI do X?’ or ‘Why try to build any AI at all, isn’t it safer just to ban the whole field?’.
It does look a bit like the first attempt at something, and it seems to be lacking in the degree of mathematical rigour that I get the impression SIAI wants.
Yeah, I started reading it and will probably finish b/c it’s interesting, I just wonder how different it it from their current direction and what the diffs are.
It is simplest to just say that it is obsolete. It has largely been obsoleted by CEV. But SIAI’s thinking on Friendly AI is fluid/dynamic and does not accord with any dogma or single published paper. You can say that it clusters around “CEV-like ideas”. (There is a general consensus that some sort of extrapolation is a good idea rather than directly implementing literal human wishes.) For an example of more recent thinking, see Muehlhauser & Helm’s draft paper on the SIAI blog.
I read it a while ago and I definitely don’t regret doing so.
I have no idea whether SIAI would still stand by it or disavow it at this point, but even if they think the central methodology is flawed there are still a lot of other arguments made which answer a lot of other questions e.g. ‘Wouldn’t an AI do X?’ or ‘Why try to build any AI at all, isn’t it safer just to ban the whole field?’.
It does look a bit like the first attempt at something, and it seems to be lacking in the degree of mathematical rigour that I get the impression SIAI wants.
Yeah, I started reading it and will probably finish b/c it’s interesting, I just wonder how different it it from their current direction and what the diffs are.
It is simplest to just say that it is obsolete. It has largely been obsoleted by CEV. But SIAI’s thinking on Friendly AI is fluid/dynamic and does not accord with any dogma or single published paper. You can say that it clusters around “CEV-like ideas”. (There is a general consensus that some sort of extrapolation is a good idea rather than directly implementing literal human wishes.) For an example of more recent thinking, see Muehlhauser & Helm’s draft paper on the SIAI blog.