"Reward Is Enough" is an interesting paper, less for its content, more for its place in the zeitgeist or something. It has very little in the way of novel "theo

"Reward Is Enough" is an interesting paper, less for its content, more for its place in the zeitgeist or something. It has very little in the way of novel "theorem proving" but it has sparked quite a lot of discussion. It's a paper which manages to be really great in some sort of subtle way, just because it inspires so much conversation. I'll plug my own response, "Can reinforcement learning learn itself? A reply to 'Reward is enough'", in which I ask: ok, if creating good enough RL agents can lead to AGI, and if AGI can do anything humans can, and if humans can write good RL agents, doesn't that seem to imply it should be possible to use an RL environment to incentivize RL agents to write good RL agents? https://philpapers.org/archive/ALECRL.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/ALECRL.pdf