| Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) | v1.20.0Sep 16th 2020 | (+17) | ||
| accolade | v1.19.0Nov 21st 2015 | (+5) typo | ||
| Nataniel | v1.18.0Sep 16th 2013 | (+23) /* References */ | ||
| Nataniel | v1.17.0Sep 16th 2013 | (-23) /* See also */ | ||
| Nataniel | v1.16.0Sep 16th 2013 | (+23) /* See also */ | ||
| Kaj_Sotala | v1.15.0Oct 3rd 2012 | (+370/-327) | ||
| pedrochaves | v1.14.0Oct 2nd 2012 | (+3/-3) | ||
| pedrochaves | v1.13.0Oct 2nd 2012 | (+12/-12) | ||
| pedrochaves | v1.12.0Oct 2nd 2012 | (+51/-7) | ||
| pedrochaves | v1.11.0Oct 2nd 2012 | (+9) |
Coherent Aggregated Volition is presented as simpler than his interpretation of CEV, and intended to be easier to formalize and prototype in the foreseeable future (with the help of platforms such as OpenCog. CAV is not, however, intended to answer the question of provably Friendly AI, although Goertzel claims CEV may not answer that question either.
Coherent Aggregated Volition is one of Ben Goertzel's responseresponses to Eliezer Yudkowsky's Coherent Extrapolated Volition, the other being Coherent Blended Volition. CAV would be a combination of the goals and beliefs of humanity at the present time.
The author considers the "extrapolation" aspect of CEV as distorting the concept of volition and to be highly uncertain. He considers that if the person whose volition is being extrapolated has some inconsistent aspects (which is tipicallytypically human), then there could be a great variety of possible extrapolations. The problem would then be which version of this extrapolated human to choose, or how to aggregate them, which would be very difficult to achieve.
Coherent Aggregated Volition is presented as simpler than his interpretation of CEV, and intended to be easier to formalize and prototype in the foreseeable future (with the help of platforms such as OpenCog. CAV is not, however, intended to answer the question of provably Friendly AI,AI, although Goertzel claims CEV is possiblymay not the answer as well.question either.
The author starts by defendingarguing that we must treat goals and beliefs together, as a single concept, which he calls gobs (and gobses for the plural). Each agent thus can have several gobs, logically consistent or not. As a way to measure how muchof measuring the distance of these gobs are distant tofrom each other, the term gobs metric is used - the persons or AGI could agree, with various degrees, on several metrics, but it seems probable that this individual's metrics would differ less than their gobses.
In some experiments with iteratively repairsrepairing inconsistent beliefs within a probabilistic reasoning system, the author claims that it seems like we can reach a set of beliefs very different from the one we started - which seems to reflect the CEV process and main problem.may be a problem with CEV. That is, the iterative refinement of the agents' goals and beliefs canmight not always be a good systemway to turn inconsistent values withinto similar consistent ones.
Finally, whileGoertzel feels that it seems thatlike CEV bypasses the humanity feeling,an essential aspect of being human, by not encompassing the person's growth process andallowing humans to resolve their inconsistencies in the human mind,themselves. CAV tries to summarize it,this process, respecting and not replacing it. The intrinsic inheritance of possiblyit, even if this leads to more "bad" aspects of humanity than CEV is then seen as more human.being retained.
Finally, while it seems that CEV bypasses the humanity feeling, by not encompassing the person's growth process and inconsistencies in the human mind, CAV tries to summarize it, respecting and not replacing it. The intrinsic inheritance of possibly more "bad" aspects of humanity than CAVCEV is then seen as more human.
Although CEV is seen as possibly giving a feasible solution, Goertzel states there's no guarantee of this, and that Yudkowsky's method can generate solutions very far from the populations'population's gobses.
Coherent Aggregated Volition is presented as simpler than his interpretation of CEV, and intended to be easier to formalize and prototype in the foreseeable future.future (with the help of platforms such as OpenCog. CAV is not, however, intended to answer the question of Friendly AI, although Goertzel claims CEV is possibly not the answer as well.
Finally, while it seems that CEV bypasses the humanity feeling, by not encompassing the person's growth process and inconsistencies in the human mind, CAV tries to summarize it, respecting and not replacing it. The intrinsic inheritance of possibly more "bad" aspects of humanity than CAV is then seen as more human.