Difference between revisions of "Missing gear vs secret sauce"
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{| class="sortable wikitable" | {| class="sortable wikitable" | ||
| − | ! Term !! | + | ! Term !! Is the final piece a big breakthrough? !! Nature of final piece !! Found by humans or found by AI? !! Length of lead time prior to final piece !! Number of pieces !! Explanation |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Missing gear || | + | | Missing gear || Not necessarily. I think this term is somewhat ambiguous about whether the final piece is expected to be big vs small. || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Secret sauce || | + | | Secret sauce || Yes || || || || Small number, possibly one? || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | One wrong number function || | + | | One wrong number function / Step function || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Understanding is discontinuous || Not necessarily || Restricts the final piece to be about understanding, where the AI goes from "not understanding" to "understanding" something. || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Payoff thresholds || Not necessarily || Does not specify || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | One algorithm<ref>https://aiimpacts.org/likelihood-of-discontinuous-progress-around-the-development-of-agi/#One_algorithm</ref> || Yes || || || || Small number, possibly one? || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Lumpy AI progress || Yes || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Intelligibility of intelligence || Yes || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Simple core algorithm || Yes || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Small number of breakthroughs needed for AGI || Yes || || || || Small number (up to around 10?) || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | + | | Good consequentialist reasoning has low Kolmogorov complexity<ref>https://agentfoundations.org/item?id=1228</ref> || Yes || || I think MIRI wants humans to discover this, for the sake of being able to align the AI. But this core of good consequentialist reasoning can also be discovered by a search process (e.g. resulting in a mesa-optimizer). || || Small number? || | |
| − | |||
| − | | Good consequentialist reasoning has low Kolmogorov complexity || | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
[[Category:AI safety]] | [[Category:AI safety]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:16, 9 June 2020
I want to distinguish between the following two framings:
- missing gear/one wrong number problem/step function/understanding is discontinuous/payoff thresholds: "missing gear" doesn't imply that the last piece added is all that significant -- it just says that adding it caused a huge jump in capabilities.
- secret sauce for intelligence/small number of breakthroughs: "small number of breakthroughs" says that the last added piece must have been a significant piece (which is what a breakthrough is).
I'm not sure how different these two actually are. But when thinking about discontinuities, I've noticed that I am somewhat inconsistent about conflating these two and distinctly visualizing them.
| Term | Is the final piece a big breakthrough? | Nature of final piece | Found by humans or found by AI? | Length of lead time prior to final piece | Number of pieces | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missing gear | Not necessarily. I think this term is somewhat ambiguous about whether the final piece is expected to be big vs small. | |||||
| Secret sauce | Yes | Small number, possibly one? | ||||
| One wrong number function / Step function | ||||||
| Understanding is discontinuous | Not necessarily | Restricts the final piece to be about understanding, where the AI goes from "not understanding" to "understanding" something. | ||||
| Payoff thresholds | Not necessarily | Does not specify | ||||
| One algorithm[1] | Yes | Small number, possibly one? | ||||
| Lumpy AI progress | Yes | |||||
| Intelligibility of intelligence | Yes | |||||
| Simple core algorithm | Yes | |||||
| Small number of breakthroughs needed for AGI | Yes | Small number (up to around 10?) | ||||
| Good consequentialist reasoning has low Kolmogorov complexity[2] | Yes | I think MIRI wants humans to discover this, for the sake of being able to align the AI. But this core of good consequentialist reasoning can also be discovered by a search process (e.g. resulting in a mesa-optimizer). | Small number? |
