4 ms·

Ehhhh we're pretty close on that one, actually. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0069 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0069

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Did you link the right article? Nothing in that article discusses interpersonal neurological response systems or anything relating to how mores and boundaries are created. Seems like you're linking to something which may be on the track to narrow down consciousnesses which is a separate question - and one I also question the benefit of caring about.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >Nothing in that article discusses interpersonal neurological response systems or anything relating to how mores and boundaries are created. Well, we weren't discussing social reasoning and behavior, so I linked an article talking about the systems governing the brain's "objective function".
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    In fact I was, but I wasn't explicit enough, so that's my fault. My original statement should have been: "We can't model Humanity's Collective Objective Function" - which is what would be behind what we are interested in: Stable functioning muti-agent systems. I think EY took a crack at this a long time ago and rightly abandoned the concept (see: CEV). Even with that clarification I disagree with the premise that we can model an "objective function" for an individual strictly in-vivo. Modelling an individual agent's reasoning/function system doesn't account for the environmental context it exists inside of, gives input into and responds to. So even if it was possible to understand the mechanism for intra-personal decision criteria, and I don't think it probably is, I don't think it's generalizable without having the context of inputs. Assuming that we could do this, I don't think you can extrapolate intentionality directly from individual to collective groups - which for an AGI is what is existentially important as it needs to be collectively general to solve the existential problem. I also don't think this is desirable as a framework for AGI - as humans, despite our intelligent status, are quite unstable and sub-optimal in groups.
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      >My original statement should have been: "We can't model Humanity's Collective Objective Function" - which is what would be behind what we are interested in: Stable functioning muti-agent systems. I think EY took a crack at this a long time ago and rightly abandoned the concept (see: CEV). If no such thing exists, then it was the wrong thing to investigate, so stop being interested in it. >Even with that clarification I disagree with the premise that we can model an "objective function" for an individual strictly in-vivo. Modelling an individual agent's reasoning/function system doesn't account for the environmental context it exists inside of, gives input into and responds to. So even if it was possible to understand the mechanism for intra-personal decision criteria, and I don't think it probably is, I don't think it's generalizable without having the context of inputs. That's just an inverse reasoning/theory-of-mind problem, one that normal theory-of-mind models and actual human brains solve every day. >Assuming that we could do this, I don't think you can extrapolate intentionality directly from individual to collective groups - which for an AGI is what is existentially important as it needs to be collectively general to solve the existential problem. What's this about "collectively general" and "the existential problem"? You seem to have gone off the deep end into philosophy salad. >I also don't think this is desirable as a framework for AGI - as humans, despite our intelligent status, are quite unstable and sub-optimal in groups. Considering you don't seem to know much about how humans work and what causes us to work well or badly in various situations, this statement comes off as almost racist.
      - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
        Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder so it's not worth having any further discussion.
        eli_gottlieb 8y ago
        Well, clear communication is important. The more important something is, the more clarity is necessary.
      - dang 8y ago
        > you don't seem to know much about how humans work [...] comes off as almost racist You broke the HN guidelines pretty badly here, first by getting personal, and second by not doing this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." The result was a whole litany of complaints elsewhere, which were understandable if off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17359858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17359858). You unfortunately have a long history of breaking the site guidelines. Would you please reread them and fix this? It's really not ok, and even though I appreciate your substantive comments, their value doesn't obviously exceed the damage you've caused with harshness, swipes, and uncharitable responses over the years. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Did you link the right article? Nothing in that article discusses interpersonal neurological response systems or anything relating to how mores and boundaries are created. Seems like you're linking to something which may be on the track to narrow down consciousnesses which is a separate question - and one I also question the benefit of caring about.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>Nothing in that article discusses interpersonal neurological response systems or anything relating to how mores and boundaries are created. Well, we weren't discussing social reasoning and behavior, so I linked an article talking about the systems governing the brain's "objective function".
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  In fact I was, but I wasn't explicit enough, so that's my fault. My original statement should have been: "We can't model Humanity's Collective Objective Function" - which is what would be behind what we are interested in: Stable functioning muti-agent systems. I think EY took a crack at this a long time ago and rightly abandoned the concept (see: CEV). Even with that clarification I disagree with the premise that we can model an "objective function" for an individual strictly in-vivo. Modelling an individual agent's reasoning/function system doesn't account for the environmental context it exists inside of, gives input into and responds to. So even if it was possible to understand the mechanism for intra-personal decision criteria, and I don't think it probably is, I don't think it's generalizable without having the context of inputs. Assuming that we could do this, I don't think you can extrapolate intentionality directly from individual to collective groups - which for an AGI is what is existentially important as it needs to be collectively general to solve the existential problem. I also don't think this is desirable as a framework for AGI - as humans, despite our intelligent status, are quite unstable and sub-optimal in groups.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >My original statement should have been: "We can't model Humanity's Collective Objective Function" - which is what would be behind what we are interested in: Stable functioning muti-agent systems. I think EY took a crack at this a long time ago and rightly abandoned the concept (see: CEV). If no such thing exists, then it was the wrong thing to investigate, so stop being interested in it. >Even with that clarification I disagree with the premise that we can model an "objective function" for an individual strictly in-vivo. Modelling an individual agent's reasoning/function system doesn't account for the environmental context it exists inside of, gives input into and responds to. So even if it was possible to understand the mechanism for intra-personal decision criteria, and I don't think it probably is, I don't think it's generalizable without having the context of inputs. That's just an inverse reasoning/theory-of-mind problem, one that normal theory-of-mind models and actual human brains solve every day. >Assuming that we could do this, I don't think you can extrapolate intentionality directly from individual to collective groups - which for an AGI is what is existentially important as it needs to be collectively general to solve the existential problem. What's this about "collectively general" and "the existential problem"? You seem to have gone off the deep end into philosophy salad. >I also don't think this is desirable as a framework for AGI - as humans, despite our intelligent status, are quite unstable and sub-optimal in groups. Considering you don't seem to know much about how humans work and what causes us to work well or badly in various situations, this statement comes off as almost racist.
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder so it's not worth having any further discussion.
      - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
        Well, clear communication is important. The more important something is, the more clarity is necessary.
    - dang 8y ago
      > you don't seem to know much about how humans work [...] comes off as almost racist You broke the HN guidelines pretty badly here, first by getting personal, and second by not doing this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." The result was a whole litany of complaints elsewhere, which were understandable if off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17359858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17359858). You unfortunately have a long history of breaking the site guidelines. Would you please reread them and fix this? It's really not ok, and even though I appreciate your substantive comments, their value doesn't obviously exceed the damage you've caused with harshness, swipes, and uncharitable responses over the years. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html