winstonne
12
Ω
1
7
winstonne has not written any posts yet.
If anyone is interested in joining a learning community around the ideas of active inference, the mission of https://www.activeinference.org/ is to educate the community around these topics. There's a study group around the 2022 active inference textbook by Parr, Friston, and Pezzulo. I'm in the 5th cohort and it's been very useful for me.
In theory, if humans and AIs aligned on their generative models (i.e., if there is methodological, scientific, and fact alignment), then goal alignment, even if sensible to talk about, will take care of itself: indeed, starting from the same "factual" beliefs, and using the same principles of epistemology, rationality, ethics, and science, people and AIs should in principle arrive at the same predictions and plans.
What about zero sum games? If you took took an agent, cloned it, then put both copies into a shared environment with only enough resources to support one agent, they would be forced to compete with one another. I guess they both have the same "goals" per se, but they are not aligned even though they are identical.
> Markov blankets, to the best of my knowledge, have never been derived, either precisely or approximately, for physical systems
This paper does just that. It introduces a 'blanket index' by which any state space can be analyzed to see whether a markov blanket assumption is suitable or not. Quoting MJD Ramstead's summary of the paper's results with respect to the markov blanket assumption:
We now know that, in the limit of increasing dimensionality, essentially all systems (both linear and nonlinear) will have Markov blankets, in the appropriate sense. That is, as both linear and nonlinear systems become increasingly high-dimensional, the probability of finding a Markov blanket between subsets approaches 1.
The assumption I find most problematic is that the environment is presumed to be at steady state
Note the assumption is that the environment is at a nonequilibrium steady state, not a heat-death-of-the-universe steady state. My reading of this is that it is an explicit assumption that probabilistic inference is possible.
Ah ok, I think I'm following you. To me, freedom describes a kind of bubble around a certain physical or abstract dimension, who's center is at another agent. It's main use is to limit computational complexity when sharing an environment with other agents. If I have a set of freedom values, I don't have to infer the values of the agent so long as I don't enter their freedom bubbles. In the traffic example, how the neighborhood is constructed should be irrelevant to McTraffic, all it needs to know is a) there are other agents present in the neighborhood already, and b) it wants to change the nature of the neighborhood, which will enter the other agent's freedom bubbles. Therefore it needs to to negotiate with the inhabitants (so yes, at this step there's an inference via dialogue going on).
I'm not following your final point. Regardless of determinism, the "state space" I can explore as an embedded agent is constrained by the properties of the local environment. If I value things like a walkable neighborhood, but I'm stuck in a pile of rubble, that's going to constrain my available state space and accordingly it's going to constrain my ability to have any rewarding outcome. McTraffic, by not allotting freedoms to me when executing their transportation redesign impeded on my freedom (which was mostly afforded to me through my and my neighbors property rights).
Freedoms (properly encoded), I believe are the proper framing for creating utility functions/value-systems for critters like our friendly neighborhood... (read more)
Hmm, Looks like I should add an examples section and more background on what I mean related to freedom. What you are describing sounds like a traffic system that values ergodic efficiency of it's managed network and you are showing a way that a participant can have very non-ergodic results. It sounds like that is more of an engineering problem than what I'm imagining.
Examples off the top of my head of what I mean with respect to loss of freedom resulting from a powerful agent's value system include things like:
Hi! Long time lurker, first time commenter. You have written a great piece here. This is a topic that has fascinated me for a while and I appreciate what you've laid out.
I'm wondering if there's a base assumption on the whole intelligence vs values/beliefs/goals question that needs to be questioned.
This statement points to my question. There's necessarily a positive correlation between internal complexity and intelligence right?. So, in order for intelligence to increase, internal complexity must also increase. My understanding is that complexity is a characteristic of dynamic and generative phenomena, and not of purely mechanical phenomena. So, what do we have... (read 365 more words →)