= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (210)
It's a good thing - from their point of view. They probably think that there should be more paperclips. The term "should" makes sense in the context of a set of preferences.
No, it's a paperclip-maximizing thing. From their point of view, and ours. No disagreement. They just care about what's paperclip-maximizing, not what's good.
This is not a real point of disagreement.
IMO, in this context, "good" just means "favoured by this moral system". An action that "should" be performed is just one that would be morally obligatory - according to the specified moral system. Both terms are relative to a set of moral standards.
I was talking as though a paperclip maximiser would have morals that reflected their values. You were apparently assuming the opposite. Which perspective is better would depend on which particular paperclip maximiser was being examined.
Personally, I think there are often good reasons for morals and values being in tune with one another.