draq

Karma: −79

Levels of Intelligence

draq26 Oct 2010 11:57 UTC

−20 points

82 comments1 min readLW link

draq 26 Oct 2010 14:43 UTC
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
Well, a paperclip maximizer has an identifiable goal. What is the identifiable goal of humans?

Well, “finding new algorithms” aka learning may itself be a kind of algorithm, but certainly of a higher-level than a simple algorithms aka instinct or reflex. I think there is a qualitative difference between an entity that cannot learn and an entity that can.

draq 26 Oct 2010 14:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
Well that’s the point. The intelligence itself defines the criterion. Choosing goals presumes a degree of self-reflection that a paperclip maximizer does not have.

If a paperclip maximizer starts asking why it does what it does, then there are two possible outcomes. Either it realises that maximizing paperclips is required for a greater good, in which case it is not really a paperclip maximizer, but a “greater good” maximizer, and paperclip maximising isn’t the end to itself.

Or it realises that paperclip maximising is absolutely pointless and there is something better to do. In that case, it stops being a paperclip maximiser.

So, to be and to stay a paperclip maximiser, it must not question the end of its activity. And that’s slightly different to human beings, who are often asking for the meaning of life.
What links here?
- draq's comment on Levels of Intelligence by draq (28 Oct 2010 19:23 UTC; 0 points)

draq 26 Oct 2010 14:57 UTC
0 points
in reply to: David_Allen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
I fully agree. There are many aspects of intelligence.

The reason I choose this categorization, given it is valid, is to highlight the aspect of intelligence that is relevant to ethics.

I think only a level-3 intelligence can be a moral agent. An intelligence that has an innate goal does not need to and cannot bother itself with moral questions.
What links here?
- David_Allen's comment on Levels of Intelligence by draq (28 Oct 2010 15:31 UTC; 0 points)

draq 26 Oct 2010 16:24 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
I believe the problem is that while I believe in and presumed an absolute moral system, you don’t.

Let’s agree on a definition of morality/ethics, that it is what we should do to reach a desirable state or value, given that we both understand what “value” or “should” mean.

I think that morality exists as much as the physical world exist. If you believe that the physical reality is absolute, then there is no reason to doubt that there is a consistent absolute moral system. In our everyday life, we don’t question the reality of the physical world, as much as we always uphold a moral system (unless we are psychopath). We have moral perception as much as we have an physical perception.

Of course, concerning the physical world, we have established a methodology that is agreed upon by the vast majority of people. That is, we have a method using which we can determine what is false, if not what is true. So far, we do not have anything alike in morality that is as easily understandable as the scientific methods. So far it only means that we cannot determine the moral system as precisely as the physical system we live in.

In summary, I believe that the moral world is as real as the physical world. However, I don’t know the moral world completely as much as I don’t understand the physical world completely. So, I don’t know what constitutes “better” in every possible situation, as much as I don’t know what constitutes “real” in every possible situation.

But I believe that there is one single right answer. Otherwise, it becomes quite confusing.

draq 26 Oct 2010 16:50 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: nhamann’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
My post isn’t supposed to be biologically accurate. Bacteria include a vast majority of organisms and I do them wrong if I depict them as crude and simple. As a part of my apology tour, I will start with my gut flora.

Replace “bacteria” with “secure hash algorithm”.

draq 26 Oct 2010 19:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: nhamann’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
So you point is that I am wrong on bacteria. I agree, let’s move on.

draq 26 Oct 2010 19:52 UTC
0 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
The absolute moral system I am talking about is as “absolute” as the physical world. Our perception of the reality (“the absolute physical world”) is also a primarily instinct that humans evolved to make life easier.

The difference between level 2 and level 3 intelligence is, using an analogy, like the difference between an intelligence that acts on postulated theories of the physical world and an intelligence that discovers new physical theories.

draq 26 Oct 2010 20:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
Well, the absolute moral system I meant does encompass everything, incl. AI and alien intelligence. It is true that different moral problems require different solutions, that is also true to physics. Objects in vacuum behave differently than in the atmosphere. Water behaves differently than ice, but they are all governed by the same physics, so I assume.

A similar problem may have a different solution if the situation is different. An Edo-ero samurai and a Wall Street banker may behave perfectly moral even if they act differently to the same problem due to the social environment.

Maybe it is perfectly moral for AIs to kill and annihilate all humans, as much as it is perfectly possible that 218 of Russell’s teapots are revolving around Gliese 581 g.

That doesn’t sound like a very good reason to believe something.

Well, I formulated it wrongly. I meant that all answers are logically consistent. There might be more than one answer, but they do not contradict each other. So there is only one set of logically consistent answers. Otherwise, it becomes absurd.

draq 26 Oct 2010 22:00 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: Pavitra’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
What form of evidence or argument would persuade you to change your mind on the usefulness/validity of falsification?

What form of evidence or argument would persuade you to change your mind on your understanding of the physical reality?

draq 26 Oct 2010 22:02 UTC
0 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
If I understand correctly what you are saying, then the answer is no.

Morality is the system of normative rules in contrast to the system of descriptive theories that we use to understand our physical world..

draq 27 Oct 2010 15:38 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
As you know, there are different “valid” set of theories regarding the physical reality: the biblical view, the theories underlying TCM, the theories underlying homeopathy, the theories underlying chiropractise and the scientific view. The scientific view is well-established because there is an intersubjective consensus on the usefulness of the methodology.

The methods used in moral discussions are by far not so rigidly defined as in science, it’s called civil discourse. The arguments must be logical consistent and the outcomes and conclusions of the normative theory must face the empirical challenge, i.e. if you can derive from your moral system that it is permissible to kill innocent children without any benefits, then there is probably something wrong.

draq 27 Oct 2010 19:59 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Pavitra’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
I believe in an absolute moral system as much as I believe in the rules of mathematics and other ideas. We can debate whether ideas (or the physical reality for that matter) exist in the absence of a mind, but I guess that is not the point.

As long as we have values, desires, dislikes and make judgements (which all of us do and which maybe is a defining characteristic of the human being beyond the biological basics) and if we want to put these values into a logical consistent system, we have an absolute moral system.

So if I stop having any desires and stop making any judgements, then I may still believe in a moral system, as much as an agnostic won’t deny the existence of God, but it would be totally irrelevant to me.

Morality is as real as the physical world.

draq27 Oct 2010 20:55 UTC

−13 points

4 comments2 min readLW link

draq 27 Oct 2010 22:30 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: jimrandomh’s comment on: Morality is as real as the physical world.
1) The fact that we do not have a near-universal agreement now does not mean that we won’t have one in future. It also does not mean that there is no one correct answer.

2) What you are saying is that currently we are not very precise, or not as precise as natural science. That doesn’t mean that we are not going to be closer to the correct answer in the future.

3a) Analogously, if we compare different viewpoints about the natural world and looks for the common, then there is also very little we can agree on. Maybe only on a few parameters like colour, form and number. Or even less.

3b) What if there are lifeforms that exist (are evolutionary successful) without any concepts of mathematics and visual perception? What if they have nothing in common wahtsoever with us? Is our physical reality also just as “relative” as our morality?

4) There are differences between the natural world and the normative world. I am certainly not implying that the normative world has the same qualities as the natural world and that you can explore the normative world in the same way as you explore the natural world. So please understand my references to natural science as vague analogies only.

5) You can read my post as a defence for an absolute morality or as an attack against an absolute physical reality. I feel that people on this website are easily ready to attack the notion of an absolute morality, while taking an absolute physical reality as self-evident.

6) Maybe neither the natural world nor the normative world is absolute and as total sceptics, we all become solipsist. But in our everyday life, when we are too busy with the details of life to be sceptic, we subconsciously assume the natural world to be real. In the same way, we can handle the normative world “as if” real, just because its useful and fun.

draq 28 Oct 2010 17:03 UTC
0 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
I feel that killing innocent children without any benefit is wrong. I reason about it, and within my normative system, it makes sense to believe that is absolute moral, and not just mere opinion.

I see through a telescope a bright spot in the sky. I think it is the planet Saturn. I reason about it and within my system of physical theories, it makes sense to believe that is absolute real, and not just mere opinion.

draq 28 Oct 2010 17:13 UTC
0 points
in reply to: David_Allen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence
Is there anything absolute according to your defintion?

Are numbers absolute? I can think of a context, where numbers are meaningless. E.g. if I am talking about Picasso.

Is the physical reality absolute? I can think of a context where the physical reality isn’t absolute. For example, if I am thinking of numbers.

draq 28 Oct 2010 17:38 UTC
0 points
in reply to: NihilCredo’s comment on: Morality is as real as the physical world.
I have edited my post in such a way that the terms are now more clear.

If moral system is a normative theory, then there are many.

If moral system is morality, then there is only one.

draq 28 Oct 2010 18:57 UTC
1 point
on: What hardcore singularity believers should consider doing
So we presume that all members of SIAI want to live forever? Maybe someone enjoys sex more than longevity.

draq 28 Oct 2010 19:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: David_Allen’s comment on: Levels of Intelligence

So morality can’t applied to all contexts, and so in that sense it can’t be absolute.

I’m not sure how to answer this. What do you mean by “absolute”.

In the same sense you used to deny the existence of absolute morality.

Does this make physical reality absolute to you?

Using that defintion, morality isn’t as absolute as physical reality. Morality then only applies to self-reflective level-3 intelligence (cf that comment of mine).

But why do you believe that everything happens within the context of physical reality?

Let me present you the Cartesian view (cf Mind-body dichotomy):

Mental phenomena and physical phenomena are in two different domains. Human beings exist in both due to “God” (who, for our purpose, does nothing else, so there is no way to test God empirically). In this view, God is the absolute context, while the physical reality isn’t.

So is there any convincing reason why I should think that the physical reality instead of God is absolute, other than the fact that many clever people think that way. I don’t want to believe in an absolute system based on the majority opinion.

draq

Levels of Intelligence

Mo­ral­ity is as real as the phys­i­cal world.

Morality is as real as the physical world.