This is probably the best-written post I’ve seen yet from the Distillation Contest. Well done.
There are some technical points which aren’t quite right. Most notably:
In terms of the type signature of A’s goal component, the fact that it took the current world state as input proved to be a problem. Agent B’s goals were more stable since they were not dependent on the current state of the room...
B’s type signature is still (probably) a function of room-state, e.g. it has a utility function mapping room-state to a real number. A’s type signature might also be a function of room-state, e.g. it might map each room-state to an action or a preferred next state. But A’s type signature does not map room-state to a real number, which it then acts to increase.
Anyway, your examples are great, and even in places where I don’t quite agree with the wording of technical statements the examples are still basically correct and convey the right intuition. Great job!
The quote specifically mentioned the type signature of A’s goal component. The idea I took from it was that B is doing something like
utility = compare(world_state, goal)
and A is doing something like
utility = compare(world_state, goal(world_state))
where the second thing can be unstable in ways that the first can’t.
...But maybe talking about the type signature of components is cheating? We probably don’t want to assume that all relevant agents will have something we can consider a “goal component”, though conceivably a selection theorem might let us do that in some situations.
Thank you! I’d be glad to include this and any other corrections in an edit once contest results are released. Are there any other errors which catch your eye?
This is probably the best-written post I’ve seen yet from the Distillation Contest. Well done.
There are some technical points which aren’t quite right. Most notably:
B’s type signature is still (probably) a function of room-state, e.g. it has a utility function mapping room-state to a real number. A’s type signature might also be a function of room-state, e.g. it might map each room-state to an action or a preferred next state. But A’s type signature does not map room-state to a real number, which it then acts to increase.
Anyway, your examples are great, and even in places where I don’t quite agree with the wording of technical statements the examples are still basically correct and convey the right intuition. Great job!
The quote specifically mentioned the type signature of A’s goal component. The idea I took from it was that B is doing something like
and A is doing something like
where the second thing can be unstable in ways that the first can’t.
...But maybe talking about the type signature of components is cheating? We probably don’t want to assume that all relevant agents will have something we can consider a “goal component”, though conceivably a selection theorem might let us do that in some situations.
Thank you! I’d be glad to include this and any other corrections in an edit once contest results are released. Are there any other errors which catch your eye?