Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
Thanks for the guidance! Together with Gwern's reply my understanding now is that caching can indeed be very fluidly integrated into the architecture (and that there is a whole fascinating field that I could try to learn about).
After letting the ideas settle for a bit, I think that one aspect that might have lead me to think
In my mind, there is an amount of internal confusion which feels much stronger than what I would expect for an agent as in the OP
is that a Bayesian agent as described still is (or at least could be) very "monolithic" in its world model. I struggle with putting this into words, but my thinking feels a lot more disjointed/local/modular. It would make sense if there is a spectrum from "basically global/serial computation" to "fully distributed/parallel computation" where going more to the right adds sources of internal confusion.
What a reply, thank you!
We are sitting close to the playground on top of red and blue blankets
Hmm.. . In my mind, the Pilot wave theory position does introduce a substrate dependence for the particle-position vs. wavefunction distinction, but need not distinguish any further than that. This still leaves simulation, AI-consciousness and mind-uploads completely open. It seems to me that the Pilot wave vs. Many worlds question is independent of/orthogonal to these questions.
I fully agree that saying "only corpuscle folk is real" (nice term by the way!) is a move that needs explaining. One advantage of Pilot wave theory is that one need not wonder about where the Born probabilities are coming from - they are directly implied of one wishes to make predictions about the future. One not-so-satisfying property is that the particle positions are fully guided by the wavefunction without any influence going the other way. I do agree that this makes it a lot easier to regard the positions as a superfluous addition that Occam's razor should cut away.
For me, an important aspect of these discussions is that we know that our understanding is incomplete for every of these perspectives. Gravity has not been satisfyingly incorporated into any of these. Further, the Church-Turing thesis is an open question.
I am not too familiar with how advocates of Pilot wave theory usually state this, but I want to disagree slightly. I fully agree with the description of what happens mathematically in Pilot wave theory, but I think that there is a way in which the worlds that one finds oneself outside of do not exist.
If we assume that it is in fact just the particle positions which are "reality", the only way in which the wave function (including all many worlds contributions) affects "reality" is by influencing its future dynamics. Sure, this means that the many worlds computationally do exist even in pilot wave theory. But I find the idea that "the way that the world state evolves is influenced by huge amounts of world states that 'could have been'" meaningfully different to "there literally are other worlds that include versions of myself which are just as real as I am". The first is a lot closer to everyday intuitions.
Well, this works to the degree to which we can (arbitrarily?) decide the particle positions to define "reality" (the thing in the theory that we want to look at in order to locate ourselves in the theory) in a way that is separate from being computationally a part of the model. One can easily have different opinions on how plausible this step is.
Finally, if we want to make the model capture certain non-Bayesian human behaviors while still keeping most of the picture, we can assume that instrumental values and/or epistemic updates are cached. This creates the possibility of cache inconsistency/incoherence.
In my mind, there is an amount of internal confusion which feels much stronger than what I would expect for an agent as in the OP. Or is the idea possibly that everything in the architecture uses caching and instrumental values? From reading, I imagined a memory+cache structure instead of being closer to "cache all the way down".
Apart from this, I would bet that something interesting will happen for a somewhat human-comparable agent with regards to self-modelling and identity. Would anything similar to human identity emerge or would this require additional structure? Some representation of the agent itself, and its capabilities should be present at least
After playing around für a few minutes, I like your app with >95% Probability ;) compare this bayescalc.io calculation
1
1Unfortunately, I do not have useful links for this - my understanding comes from non-English podcasts of a nutritionist. Please do not rely on my memory, but maybe this can be helpful for localizing good hypotheses.
According to how I remember this, one complication of veg*n diets and amino acids is that the question of which of the amino acids can be produced by your body and which are essential can effectively depend on your personal genes. In the podcast they mentioned that especially for males there is a fraction of the population who totally would need to supplement some "non-essential" amino acids if they want to stay healthy and follow veg*n diets. As these nutrients are usually not considered as worthy of consideration (because most people really do not need to think about them separately and also do not restrict their diet to avoid animal sources), they are not included in usual supplements and nutrition advice
(I think the term is "meat-based bioactive compounds").
I think Elizabeth also emphasized this aspect in this post
log score of my pill predictions (-0.6)
If did not make a mistake, this score could be achieved by e.g. giving ~55% probabilities and being correct every time or by always giving 70% probabilities and being right ~69 % of the time.
I read
as "he makes a claim about a thought pattern he considers mostly female", not as "he himself is described by the pattern" (QC does demonstrate high epistemic confidence in that post). Thus, I don't think that Elizabeth would disagree with you.