Re: Happy Box

From: Mikko Rauhala (
Date: Fri May 02 2008 - 12:48:46 MDT

pe, 2008-05-02 kello 08:08 -0700, John K Clark kirjoitti:
> "Mikko Rauhala"
> > This only means that you had an incomplete
> > and/or faulty understanding of your goal system
> No, it means that even a super intelligent AI will not know everything,
> and at times it will come into possession of new information that it
> never dreamed existed before, and when it does it not only can change
> its goal structure it MUST change its goal structure or it doesn’t
> deserve the grand title of “intelligent” much less “super intelligent”.

How quaint, you're practically implying that goals and intelligence are
somehow intertwined. This is not too far off from claims of objective
morality and all that jazz.

No (super)goal is more "intelligent" than another excepting perhaps for
self-consistency. (Similarly, for consistency's sake, subgoals may be
"intelligent" or not in the sense of how well they further a supergoal.)
No matter what the new information is, it should not change a sane
agent's goal system, merely provide new means to an end. Note that even
as humans are hardly sane and generally inconsistent as hell, even we
are pretty consistent in this. "The internet is for porn."

Anyway, I do have a constructive suggestion. Let's grant for this
paragraph your apparent definition of a "goal". Let's also define the
derivative of goal, "schmoal", denoting the change in a goal over time.
Now for the magic part: every time you see someone say "goal system" or
"supergoal", mentally replace it with "schmoal system" or
"superschmoal". This will enable you to much more likely be if not quite
on the same page, at least hopefully in the same chapter as the other
party, and therefore reduce superficial semantic bickering.

Hope this helps.

Mikko Rauhala   -     - <URL:>
Transhumanist   - WTA member     - <URL:>
Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - <URL:>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT