Huh? I used those phrases to describe two completely different things: a program that CAN change its highest priorities (due to what I called a bug), and one that CAN'T. How does it follow that I'm missing a distinction?
I would claim that they have a similarity, however: neither one represents a principled, trustable solution that allows for true moral development and growth. Josh On Thursday 12 June 2008 11:38:23 am, Mark Waser wrote: > You're missing the *major* distinction between a "program structure that can > make decisions that would otherwise be vetoed by the utility function" and a > program that "can't even THINK ABOUT" a choice (both your choice of phrase). > > Among other things not being able to even think about a choice prevents > accurately modeling the mental state of others who don't realize that you > have such a constraint. That seems like a very bad and limited architecture > to me. > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
