5 ms·
I once contemplated a notion of optimization process risks where we should consider how narrow a target out of the space of all possible universes the process c
by nullc 6y ago
I once contemplated a notion of optimization process risks where we should consider how narrow a target out of the space of all possible universes the process could pull ours into.
Unfortunately, I realized that even a simple phase-locked loop -- like what you use to condition an oscillator to be in sync with TAI using GPS -- can actually hit absurdly narrow targets... e.g. two oscillators a continent apart humming away within parts per billion of each other, yet that kind of process isn't particularly dangerous. Even brining millions of oscillators into sync isn't going to cause some great harm.
I'm not sure how to reason about it, but I think people are much too concerned about AGI risks relative to dumb optimization process risks. It's similar to fretting about movie-plot villains when most actual evil in the world comes from indifference and bad incentives or people trying to "help".
- Kim_Bruning 6y agoWould fitness landscapes help for part of it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape They're typically used for reasoning about other things, but there's a few useful intuitions you can draw. Notably, you can't optimize to a point that is not on the fitness landscape in the first place... so the following comic can't happen: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/ http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/ Which doesn't mean there can't be any surprises of course!