5 ms·

I'm getting kind of sick of people who haven't read 2% of the stuff imagining what they think we've never talked about over the last 16 years. https://intellig

by Eliezer 10y ago

I'm getting kind of sick of people who haven't read 2% of the stuff imagining what they think we've never talked about over the last 16 years. https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf

idlewords 10y ago
Reading 2% of your stuff is like reading 400% of my stuff, and I'm verbose as hell. Edit.
- ahh 10y ago
  First off, that's a blatant ad hominem. Moreover, if your best argument against the guy you're claiming is defrauding everyone is "I can't be bothered to read his work"...
  - idlewords 10y ago
    I've read Eliezer's stuff, which is what gives my request its special poignancy.
devilsavocado 10y ago
I haven't had time to read the entire thing, so I've skimmed over lots, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of complexity theory in the way I believe idlewords is talking about. I'm very curious: What happens if the algorithms for general artificial intelligence, and the ability for an AI to improve itself are all NP-Hard problems? Is that covered? It might be similar to the "intelligence combustion" scenario outlined. But that appears to be a scenario where do not need to be fearing superintelligence.
- Eliezer 10y ago
  As it says in the paper, the evolution of hominids doesn't look like this; population genetics says that if hominid brains got larger, the marginal fitness returns on neurons went up.
  - Eliezer 10y ago
    Or in a more intuitive sense, humans didn't seem to need brains 1000x as large to get one unit of improvement in practical effectiveness over chimpanzee cognition. But yes, this stuff is complicated, hence the paper not being two paragraphs long.
    - devilsavocado 10y ago
      Thank you, that is a very intuitive explanation. You've probably read Scott Aaronson's Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity? [0]. This seems like the perfect area to apply a lot of the questions he brings up. That's what I was looking for as I skimmed through the paper. Maybe that's what idlewords was talking about as well. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf

by Eliezer 10y ago

idlewords 10y ago

Reading 2% of your stuff is like reading 400% of my stuff, and I'm verbose as hell. Edit.

ahh 10y ago
First off, that's a blatant ad hominem. Moreover, if your best argument against the guy you're claiming is defrauding everyone is "I can't be bothered to read his work"...
- idlewords 10y ago
  I've read Eliezer's stuff, which is what gives my request its special poignancy.

devilsavocado 10y ago

I haven't had time to read the entire thing, so I've skimmed over lots, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of complexity theory in the way I believe idlewords is talking about. I'm very curious: What happens if the algorithms for general artificial intelligence, and the ability for an AI to improve itself are all NP-Hard problems? Is that covered? It might be similar to the "intelligence combustion" scenario outlined. But that appears to be a scenario where do not need to be fearing superintelligence.

Eliezer 10y ago
As it says in the paper, the evolution of hominids doesn't look like this; population genetics says that if hominid brains got larger, the marginal fitness returns on neurons went up.
- Eliezer 10y ago
  Or in a more intuitive sense, humans didn't seem to need brains 1000x as large to get one unit of improvement in practical effectiveness over chimpanzee cognition. But yes, this stuff is complicated, hence the paper not being two paragraphs long.
  - devilsavocado 10y ago
    Thank you, that is a very intuitive explanation. You've probably read Scott Aaronson's Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity? [0]. This seems like the perfect area to apply a lot of the questions he brings up. That's what I was looking for as I skimmed through the paper. Maybe that's what idlewords was talking about as well. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf