Re:Logical Induction
by gallabytes on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @03:10PM
(#12491305)
I find that perception fairly surprising, as for a very long time it felt like we did more red team than blue team. I do acknowledge that this has been changing recently, but only significantly in the context of building on the results in this paper.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Would you please direct me to an example of MIRI's Red Team efforts that isn't the recent "Malevolent AI" paper [0]? Adherence to the belief that UFAI is a threshold-grade existential risk seems to compel a "define first, delay implementation" strategy, lest any step forward be the irrevocable wrong one.
Re:Logical Induction
by gallabytes on Friday September 16, 2016 @04:42AM
(#12512673)
This makes me think the only thing we disagree on is the meaning of the words "red team" and "blue team" :)
When I say it feels like we spend a lot of time red teaming, that means I think we spend somewhere between 30 and 60% of research time trying to break things and see how they fail. This is fully compatible with not immediately implementing things - it's much less expensive to break something /before/ you build it.
It is refreshing when only the maps, and not the objects, are under serious contention. I suspect I still might prefer walking a shade closer to the line dividing definitely intra and potentially extra boxed agents, but you are the ones actually in the arena - do keep up the interesting work.