I wish this fleshed out what is meant by the "non-meta solution" criterion. I took it to mean solutions that involve creating a low-level model (neuronal/molecular) of a human that the AI could run and keep querying, but I'm not sure that's right.
by Silas Barta Jan 23 2016
I wish this fleshed out what is meant by the "non-meta solution" criterion. I took it to mean solutions that involve creating a low-level model (neuronal/molecular) of a human that the AI could run and keep querying, but I'm not sure that's right.
Comments
Eliezer Yudkowsky
By a "meta solution" I meant, e.g., coherent extrapolated volition, or having an AI that can detect and query ambiguities trying to learn human values from labeled data, or a Do-What-I-Mean genie that models human minds and wants, or other things that add a level of indirection and aren't "The One True Goal is X, which I shall now hardcode."
Can you say more about what you thought was meant? My reader model doesn't know what interpretation brought you to your guess.
Silas Barta
I was guessing because it doesn't explicitly say what "meta" would mean here, and based my guess partly on the expected semantic space covered by "meta" (roughly, doubling the problem back on itself), and partly on my assumption of the kinds of simple solutions I would expect to be ruled out. My vision of a "simple, meta" solution is thus "brute-force an understanding-free model of a human and take that with you" (which would thus require the model to be"low level" and not find the [non obvious] high level regularities that can't be brute forced).
Hope that clarified how I came up with that, but in any case, an explicit definition would help, as would a prequisite on "meta solutions".