191–200 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you measure control over the world?
In an active inference approach you would have the agent minimise surprisal. Choose the action that is most likely to produce the outcome you predicted.
Similar story of unexpected AI outcomes... As part of my PhD research, I created a simplified Pac-Man style game where the agent would simply try to stay alive as long as possible whilst being chased by the 3 ghosts. The agent was un-motivated and understood nothing about the goal, but was optimising for maximising its observable control over the world (avoiding death is a natural outcome of this). I spent sometime t…
I believe that tactic is called "kiting" and used by speedrunners?
Having all the ghosts behind you gives you more control since they'll follow you in a line.
That the ghosts follow the player is what makes the game winnable. If they formed a grid and gradually closed-in, it would be impossible to escape.
Edit: What was unexpected in this case was that the system found a strategy the programmer didn't think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shrug. Another way to frame this is a poker bot learned to fold when given a bad hand, and they only gave it the same bad hand. Yes, yes, woe is the individual in modern capitalist society but the only reason people are reacting to this are that they don't understand it and they've been told it's something much more emotionally impactful than it actually is.
>but the only reason people are reacting to this are that they don't understand it I think it's much more likely that they're reacting like this because they see their own plight in the wolf. It doesn't matter why the wolf killed itself, it became a meme that allowed many Chinese to reflect together on a common plight.
Seems like a nothing story. Just looking at the game, there's obviously a constant decision to be made of chase more sheep or instantly die. It sounds like in the original model they had a max of 20 seconds, so it's not surprising that you would just tank your losses to maximize your score every now and then. Anyone who tries to devise optimal strategies for things should be able to see this isn't especially interest…
Exactly, from technical perspective it's a nothing story. It's interesting, though, how strong of a reaction general public had to this. The story must have strongly resonated with what some folks were already feeling. When you squint (pretend to understand the technology not at all) it's a tragic story. The situation of the wolf seems similar to the situation of some people. Chasing their careers in a highly structu…
They have a word for it over there: involution i.e. no matter how much effort you put in, you get the same result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of Dreyfuss' and other similar arguments reduce do dualism when you start digging into them. I don't have the time to dig into the specific article, but here's some immediate questions: 1. What is special about a body that makes it impossible to have intelligence without it? (a) Is it possible for a quadriplegic person to be intelligent? (b) A blind and deaf person? ((c)What about that guy from Johnny Got His Gu…
> Many of Dreyfuss' and other similar arguments reduce do dualism when you start digging into them. I don't have the time to dig into the specific article, but here's some immediate questions: To me it sounds dualist if intelligence is disembodied. If the substrate doesn't matter, only the functionality, then that sounds like there's something additional to the world than just the physical constintuents. But of cours…
"To me it sounds dualist if intelligence is disembodied. If the substrate doesn't matter, only the functionality, then that sounds like there's something additional to the world than just the physical constintuents."
Off the top of my head, what the substrate is doesn't matter, but that there is a substrate does. Intelligence is the behavior of the physical constituents.
"So why is physics so heavily reliant on mathematics? Quite a few physicists think the world has a mathematical structure."
Because humans are very good at defining the rules when we need them? Because alternate rules are nothing but a curiosity even to mathematicians unless there is a use---such as a physical process---for them?
One of the problems with qualia, as a topic of discussion, is that I can never be entirely sure that you have it. I can assume you do, and rocks don't, but that is about as far as I can get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in the parent post is dualist? Sounds more like an argument that animals have embodied intelligence. But as for being a dualist in the 21st century, there is always consciousness, information and math. All three of which can lead to some form of dualism/platonism.
> cannot exercise general intelligence because they are not "in the world". Implies dualism. In a materialist world a computer can learn anything given the proper structure and stimuli.
Consider this line from an Eagles song:
“City girls just seem to find out early, how to open doors with just a smile.”
What does that mean to you?
Disembodied computers don’t get the experiences required to gain that intelligence, and even if they could go along for the ride, in a helmet cam, they wouldn't experience the tingling in their heart, lungs and genitals that provide the signals for learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of Dreyfuss' and other similar arguments reduce do dualism when you start digging into them. I don't have the time to dig into the specific article, but here's some immediate questions: 1. What is special about a body that makes it impossible to have intelligence without it? (a) Is it possible for a quadriplegic person to be intelligent? (b) A blind and deaf person? ((c)What about that guy from Johnny Got His Gu…
> Many of Dreyfuss' and other similar arguments reduce do dualism when you start digging into them. I don't have the time to dig into the specific article, but here's some immediate questions: To me it sounds dualist if intelligence is disembodied. If the substrate doesn't matter, only the functionality, then that sounds like there's something additional to the world than just the physical constintuents. But of cours…
If you put a computer in a room with a hot babe, a 3 layer chocolate cake, a bottle of the finest whisky or bourbon, the keys to a Porsche, and a trillion dollars in cash, what would it do?
Yeah, nothing. The computer is not in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which perverted mind would build into a chess computer the ability to kill?
A human mind not giving due consideration to the effects of granting arbitrarily high intelligence to an agent with simplistic morality counter to human morality. From there it's a sequence of steps that would show up in a thorough root cause analysis ("humanity, the postmortem") where the agent capitalizes on existing abilities to gain more abilities until murder is available to it. It would likely start small with…