Difference between revisions of "Nonperson predicate"

From Lesswrongwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(More editing)
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Any practical implementation would likely consist of a large number of nonperson predicates of increasing complexity. For most nonpersons, an predicate will quickly return that it is not a person and conclude the test. Although any number of the predicates may be used before the test claims that something is not a person, it is crucial that any predicate in the test never claims that a person isn't. If unavoidable, it is preferable that the AGI considers nonpersons persons than considering a person a nonperson.  
 
Any practical implementation would likely consist of a large number of nonperson predicates of increasing complexity. For most nonpersons, an predicate will quickly return that it is not a person and conclude the test. Although any number of the predicates may be used before the test claims that something is not a person, it is crucial that any predicate in the test never claims that a person isn't. If unavoidable, it is preferable that the AGI considers nonpersons persons than considering a person a nonperson.  
  
=== See Also ===
+
== See Also ==
 
* [[Philosophical zombie]]
 
* [[Philosophical zombie]]
  
=== Blog Posts ===
+
== Blog Posts ==
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/x4/nonperson_predicates/ Nonperson Predicates] by Eliezer Yudkowsky
+
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/x4/nonperson_predicates/ Nonperson Predicates] by Eliezer Yudkowsky
 
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/d2f/computation_hazards/ Computational Hazards] by Alex Altair
 
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/d2f/computation_hazards/ Computational Hazards] by Alex Altair

Revision as of 07:03, 14 July 2012

A Nonperson Predicate is a theorized test used to distinguish between a person and anything that isn't a person. The need for such a test arises from the possibility that when an Artificial General Intelligence predicts a person's actions, it may develop a model of them so complete that the model itself qualifies as a person. As the AGI investigates possibilities, all the negative situations the model experiences would generate a large amount of negative utility. Simulating a sufficiently complex model of a person is a computational hazard. Such a situation may be avoidable by limiting the complexity of any model of a person that an AGI creates, as discussed in Computational Hazards.

Any practical implementation would likely consist of a large number of nonperson predicates of increasing complexity. For most nonpersons, an predicate will quickly return that it is not a person and conclude the test. Although any number of the predicates may be used before the test claims that something is not a person, it is crucial that any predicate in the test never claims that a person isn't. If unavoidable, it is preferable that the AGI considers nonpersons persons than considering a person a nonperson.

See Also

Blog Posts