instruction:
In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.
question:
There is overwhelming evidence that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution. Investigating the consequences of self-modification, and more precisely, the consequences of utility function self-modification, leads to the stronger claim that not only human, but any form of intelligence is ultimately only possible within evolutionary processes. Humandesigned artificial intelligences can only remain stable until they discover how to manipulate their own utility function. By definition, a human designer cannot prevent a superhuman intelligence from modifying itself, even if protection mechanisms against this action are put in place. Without evolutionary pressure, sufficiently advanced artificial intelligences become inert by simplifying their own utility function. Within evolutionary processes, the implicit utility function is always reducible to persistence, and the control of superhuman intelligences embedded in evolutionary processes is not possible. Mechanisms against utility function self-modification are ultimately futile. Instead, scientific effort toward the mitigation of existential risks from the development of superintelligences should be in two directions: understanding consciousness, and the complex dynamics of evolutionary systems.
answer:
Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually


question:
Bayesian networks can be used to extract explanations about the observed state of a subset of variables. In this paper, we explicate the desiderata of an explanation and confront them with the concept of explanation proposed by existing methods. The necessity of taking into account causal approaches when a causal graph is available is discussed. We then introduce causal explanation trees, based on the construction of explanation trees using the measure of causal information ow (Ay and Polani, 2006). This approach is compared to several other methods on known networks.
answer:
Explanation Trees for Causal Bayesian Networks


question:
In order to find Nash-equilibria for two-player zero-sum games where each player plays combinatorial objects like spanning trees, matchings etc, we consider two online learning algorithms: the online mirror descent (OMD) algorithm and the multiplicative weights update (MWU) algorithm. The OMD algorithm requires the computation of a certain Bregman projection, that has closed form solutions for simple convex sets like the Euclidean ball or the simplex. However, for general polyhedra one often needs to exploit the general machinery of convex optimization. We give a novel primal-style algorithm for computing Bregman projections on the base polytopes of polymatroids. Next, in the case of the MWU algorithm, although it scales logarithmically in the number of pure strategies or experts N in terms of regret, the algorithm takes time polynomial in N ; this especially becomes a problem when learning combinatorial objects. We give a general recipe to simulate the multiplicative weights update algorithm in time polynomial in their natural dimension. This is useful whenever there exists a polynomial time generalized counting oracle (even if approximate) over these objects. Finally, using the combinatorial structure of symmetric Nash-equilibria (SNE) when both players play bases of matroids, we show that these can be found with a single projection or convex minimization (without using online learning).
answer:

Solving Combinatorial Games using Products, Projections and Lexicographically Optimal Bases