This is a fascinating discussion of the relationship between goals and intelligence from an AI safety perspective.

I asked my trusty friend GPT-4 to summarize the video (I downloaded the subtitles and fed them into ChatGPT), but I highly recommend just watching the entire thing if you have the time.

Summary by GPT-4:

Introduction:

• The video aims to respond to some misconceptions about the Orthogonality Thesis in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) safety.
• This arises from a thought experiment where an AGI has a simple goal of collecting stamps, which could cause problems due to unintended consequences.

Understanding 'Is' and 'Ought' Statements (Hume's Guillotine):

• The video describes the concept of 'Is' and 'Ought' statements. 'Is' statements are about how the world is or will be, while 'Ought' statements are about how the world should be or what we want.
• Hume's Guillotine suggests that you can never derive an 'Ought' statement using only 'Is' statements. To derive an 'Ought' statement, you need at least one other 'Ought' statement.

Defining Intelligence:

• Intelligence in AGI systems refers to the ability to take actions in the world to achieve their goals or maximize their utility functions.
• This involves having or building an accurate model of reality, using it to make predictions, and choosing the best possible actions.
• These actions are determined by the system's goals, which are 'Ought' statements.

Are Goals Stupid?

• Some commenters suggested that single-mindedly pursuing one goal (like stamp collecting) is unintelligent.
• However, this only seems unintelligent from a human perspective with different goals.
• Intelligence is separate from goals; it is the ability to reason about the world to achieve these goals, whatever they may be.

Can AGIs Choose Their Own Goals?

• The video suggests that while AGIs can choose their own instrumental goals, changing terminal goals is rare and generally undesirable.
• Terminal goals can't be considered "stupid", as they can't be judged against anything. They're simply the goals the system has.

Can AGIs Reason About Morality?

• While a superintelligent AGI could understand human morality, it doesn't mean it would act according to it.
• Its actions are determined by its terminal goals, not its understanding of human ethics.

The Orthogonality Thesis:

• The Orthogonality Thesis suggests that any level of intelligence is compatible with any set of goals.
• The level of intelligence is about effectiveness at answering 'Is' questions, and goals are about 'Ought' questions.
• Therefore, it's possible to create a powerful intelligence that will pursue any specified goal.
• The level of an agent's intelligence doesn't determine its goals and vice versa.