I’m curious as to what you would call complex or complicated. I’d also like to know those simple origins of our argument. While we all abstract away some the complexity of human behavior to produce guidelines we can grasp, I don’t consider this evidence of simplicity. I’m hardly satisfied with my current social ability; I feel certain superhuman intelligences will far surpass us in this area because they’ll have the processing power to better navigate the maze. Both predicting and influencing human behavior are hard problems.

You may have many parts and many interactions, but those interactions can be simple, and those parts can have relationships that don’t produce, require, or exhibit complexity. A high number of parts and interactions doesn’t necessarily mean complexity.

No need for brain boosters: when I’m confronted by apparent complexity I try to find the top level in the hierarchy of patterns of patterns of patterns of patterns of… You may be looking at some lower level. At the top level the underlying complexity is hidden, abstracted away. Looking at it at the top level, human behavior is simple. You don’t have to solve hard problems to deal with humans (though one could argue that we have a special human-behavior processor that makes this hard problem easy for us).

From the perspective and abstraction level you look at things, all systems are seem, and indeed are, complex, there’s no simplicity to be found anywhere. Obviously there’s enormous, humanly incomprehensible complexity and an astronomical number of interactions and information processing occurring per human-scale time units, in the machinery underlying everything alive and even some human-built systems, but that doesn’t mean the resulting behavior is complex; it’s obviously not very complex compared to the machinery itself. The reasons for our discussion and our arguments can be traced back to simple origins and random yet simple interactions. Many steps, sure. Complexity? Nah.

Where do you see complexity in day-to-day human behavior?

Everywhere. Just consider what we’re doing right now. We’re punching keys (or using voice-recognition software) in order to debate the nature of human behavior as it relates to the prospect of artificial intelligence. Our opinions and expression of them come out of intricate histories of personal experience and exposure to myriad intellectual currents. It’s difficult to say exactly why I’m arguing for complexity while you’re arguing against it. A mind-boggling array of interactions between genes and environment lead to this point. If you don’t see that as impressive complexity, you’re probably a lot smarter than I am and I want whatever intelligence-enhancement technology you’ve gotten your hands on.

@Michael

We are not describing AIs as “thoughtful” here, just lacking the inbuilt complexity that humans come with.

That’s not what the example suggests. Only the AI gets to think; the human reacts like one of Pavlov’s dogs. Humans have one predetermined response while AIs have many possibilities. As such, AIs come out looking more complex.

As a side note, the example both oversimplifies human behavior and understates the potential flexibility of designed intelligence. It does the latter assuming a specific approach to AI and a guiding set of assumptions. An AI wouldn’t automatically consider getting punched in the nose something to be avoided. Given the specific nature of the section (Reinventing retaliation), I can understand framing the issue in this way. Part of my reaction to the piece comes from thinking about it the way you introduced it, as a general introduction to the anthropomorphism debate.

Even if a human doesn’t immediately want to punch back upon being punched, a whole cascade of mental and physical changes occurs upon being punched, all of which would not exist by default in AI.

So why not put it that way? Why did Yudkowsky describe human behavior as simply mechanistic when it actually isn’t? (My apologies for erroneously attributing the document to you.)