Talk:Friendly artificial intelligence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
someone wrote:
- Do not ask for a short definition. Even after you read CFAI it is very likely that you will only begin to understand Friendliness.
That's fine, we'll give it a long definition but try to be concise. 207.112.29.2 02:28, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This article was previously listed for deletion as it was titled Friendliness Theory which only got 40 Google hits. Angela thought it was not well known enough or was primary research. 207.112.29.2 said it was not primary research or new [1]. The Wikipedia:Google Test was concluded to be fairly irrelevant here as it was a specialized topic.
Well, it was an excellent article for a first time poster, but I have to say that I didnt understand what the subject is. Is this about a robot, like in the movie AI?
Also, the question at the end let me wondering. Usually we do not post that kind of questions here. Take Salvador Sánchez for example: I was the original article poster and the question there would have been, what if he hadn't died? Would he have beaten Alexis Arguello or Wilfredo Gomez in a rematch? But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Im not sure about the method of posting questions to make people think.
Other than that, good article! Godspeed at wikipedia and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, Antonio Sexyas* Martin
Article looking good now, but I suggest a rename to Friendly artificial intelligence, as suggested by Fuzheado on VfD. Friendliness Theory is too general a title, the current title would lead one expect some general psychological theory about friendliness in general and "Theory" is a little grandiose for what is essentially a speculative notion. The term "Friendliness Theory" could still be mentioned in the body of the text, since those interested sometimes use that term, but not the title. --Lexor 22:05, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Move completed. --Lexor 22:21, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- As mentioned on VfD, it seems that friendliness theory differs from friendly AI in the important respect that it is about the value of being friendly toward an AI, rather than about the AI itself being friendly -- but of course it is supposed to lead to the AI itself being friendly. This tells me there is still room for friendliness theory in general psychology. Waveguy 04:47, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've made some revisions to the page, including adding some discussion of the capitalization issue and fixing the capitalization in the article (although I suspect I'll have to watch the article carefully to make sure errors don't creep back in). I think the analogy of teenagers is rather weak, but I don't have an alternative to pull out at the moment. I don't know where that came from; maybe the person who posted it can tell us. --G Gordon Worley III 10:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I second that the analogy of teenagers is rather off-track; for it is not clear whether the AI or the humankind is the teenager, and the secretive behaviour caused by parental tyranny has no counterpart in the FAI scenario. Suggest removal or rewrite of the entire paragraph. --Autrijus 17:46, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
I feel that this page is still close to a candidate for deletion on the grounds of it describing what is apparently one man's pet project.
The subject is the loquacious, but content-light writings of Yudkowsky on Friendliness. He provides us with the vision that future AI will be based on seed AI running on Baysian probablistic principles influenced by programmers' statements that start the AI off from a "Friendly" oriented viewpoint, which will therefore tend to persist.
Once this is extracted, it seems all he has to say is why this viewpoint is unsurprisingly incompatible with the layman's perception of what an AI might be.
Yudkowsky's idea of software is several decades out of date. For example, the idea of software reading and changing its own LISP source code is old-fashioned: modern software is composed of collaborating objects whose changing properties may affect their behaviour.
If you feel this page has a place, then two paragraphs grate:
- Why emphasize that "Friendliness" has a capital letter. It is much closer in meaning to "friendliness" than is, for example, "Chaos" (of Chaos Theory) and "chaos", and certainly close enough to make sense of the paper.
- Friendliness can only be described as an "enormously complicated subject" because Yudkowsky isn't particularly good at communicating the key ideas. Even the "brief introduction" spans several pages, and the longer document goes off onto many wild irrelevant tangents like "computronium".
Quirkie 22:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reference please
I'd like a reference -- here in talk or in the text -- for the last line of the article, "Yudkowsky later criticized this proposal by remarking that such a utility function would be better satisfied by tiling the Solar System with microscopic smiling mannequins than by making existing humans happier." I ask both for the strength of the article and for my own curiosity as a newcomer to all this. I know this is supposed to be beyond the singularity and all, but if they're arguing about it, it's got to make some sense. How can a super-human intelligence capable of "tiling the the solar system" be incapable of telling the difference btwn living humans and "microscopic smiling mannequins" of its own creation? This is incoherent to me. Thx for the article, and any help on this. "alyosha" (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Found it, or close enough, here on the SL4 list. Wow. "alyosha" (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge this article with Seed AI
This and and Seed AI should be merged into one article. Tdewey 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
