Truth Tide TV UNSEALED Epstein Case Files
menu
home Home analytics Reports article Articles auto_stories Narratives mail Email description Documents videocam Videos search Search
policy Investigate expand_more
inbox Inbox 74547 send Sent 28705 label All Mail 74547 attach_file Attachments 1907 topic Topics
People
Jeffrey Epstein person
Ghislaine Maxwell person
Bill Clinton person
Alan Dershowitz person
Elon Musk person
Bill Gates person
Ehud Barak person
Reid Hoffman person
Peter Thiel person
Larry Summers person
Prince Andrew person
Steve Bannon person
Masha Bucher person
Jason Calcanis
Michael Wolff person
Noam Chomsky person
Tom Pritzker person
Al Seckel person
Kimbal Musk person
Karyna Shuliak person
Deepak Chopra person
Ken Starr person
Peter Attia person
Jeremy Rubin person
Neri Oxman person
Marvin Minsky person
Lawrence Krauss person
Seth Lloyd person
Boris Nikolic person
Jean Luc Brunel person
Lesley Groff person
Sarah Kellen person
Nadia Marcinkova person
Darren Indyke person
Mark Epstein person
Emad Hanna person
Joscha Bach person
Rich Kahn person
Cecelia Steen
John Amerling person
Sultan Bin Sulayem person
Matthew Hitzik
Peter Mandelson person
groups People directory
74547 threads 209740 messages
Homechevron_right Emailchevron_right Decision making
arrow_back

Decision making

1 message picture_as_pdf Source PDF
J
Joscha Bach Aug 26, 2015 7:45 PM
To
Jeffrey Epstein

Re motivation: Have you seen the recent movie "Ex Machina"? I liked it; one of the few AI movies that have not been dumbed down. The main character is a beautiful female looking AI, clearly intelligent, and able to manipulate humans to an arbitrary degree. What makes her inhuman is that she is probably motivated by a single principle, like option maximization. That would make her an inscrutable psychopath. Option maximization would entail energy, physical integrity, perhaps reproduction, certainly learning, but you will have an agent that you won't like to share a prisoner's dilemma with.

How do you approach decision making? I have recently learned that people that subscribe for Cryonics (freezing one's head or body in the hope to be revived when future technologies make it possible) assign a lower probability to that it works than the general population. But whereas "normal" people tend to make binary models about the world: something is "probably not going to work, so let us not bother", many of the Cryonics folks will argue that paying $500 a month for a 1% chance of immortality seems like a bargain.

This seems to generalize: in principle, we should perform a Bayesian approximation for all our major decisions, attach probability distributions to everything in the space of possible beliefs, and be able to outperform the vast majority of folks that relies on narratives (i.e. binary yes/no decisions about the facts in the world). Gigerenzer, Kahnemann and many others have shown that human brains are terrible of getting this intuitively right, to the point where an absence of fine-grained domain knowledge often leads to better management decisions etc.

The divide between probabilistic models vs. narrative models is reflected to some degree in the conflict between probabilistic and logic based AI. In practice, we will probably need to combine both, but I wonder if there is an intrinsic limit to probabilistic descriptions in a highly complex world, where we cannot observe baseline probabilities anyway.

How do you decide? Do you Solomonoff-induce and Bayes the hell out of the stock market, do you reason, do you soak up data and let your intuitions guide you, or is most of the important stuff depending on communication and negotiation? Is there a general approach, or how much should theories of decision making be dependent on the domain?

Cheers,

Joscha

1419 files from the DOJ Epstein case media release. All files are public records from justice.gov.

Built by Truth Tide TV