@dhadfieldmenell@jttiehen Which suggests to me that your disagreement comes down to wondering whether alignment isn't in reality easier than they imagine?
@dhadfieldmenell@jttiehen And I would imagine that the ability to cooperate effectively across a large distribution of positive sum games would increase with an increasing amount of the "decision-theoretic intelligence", although the same would happen for other goals.
@ESYudkowsky@eshear Furthermore, it seems plausible that this thing that is being modeled could also be inconsistent, so in distilling it down into a coherent utility function can be an ongoing process that might only get better with more computation but never quite converge in finite time.
@ESYudkowsky@eshear what if the real utility function is a black box which is too complex to describe, and can only be queried in limited ways? Then perhaps it might be necessary to 'model it' just to handle the complexity?
@nickcammarata What's the overall template or structure for this master doc that serves all these various goals as a single source of dynamic state that's easy to maintain and update?
@nanjiang_cs@Thejakeyboy @ccanonne_ Example I gave, (p, p, 1-2p) fails pointwise.
But pointwise I think can also be made true, but needs some simple additional assumption. For example z_i sampled independently across I and then x_i defined proportional to e^z_i.
@nanjiang_cs@Thejakeyboy @ccanonne_ Suppose x = (p, p, 1-2p) where p is uniform on (0, 1). That's a random stochastic vector. Your claim seems obviously false.
@francoisfleuret Without that though, it seems like we could make at least one of U or V be a pure rotation without any but requiring this from both of them needs to relax the singular values to be negative as needed....?