= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on In conclusion: in the land beyond money pumps lie extreme events - 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 (21)
No, if utility is a step function of money, Pavitra's reasoning agrees with expected utility.
Does the SIAI really have an approach to fundraising that's better than lotteries? What is it then?
Fraud has the right payoff structure. When done at the level that SIAI could probably manage it gives significant returns and the risk is concentrated heavily in low probability 'get caught and have your entire life completely destroyed' area. If not raising enough money is an automatic fail then this kind of option is favoured by mathematics (albeit not ethics).
The point of the article you linked to behind the word ethics is that upholding ethics is rational.
Precisely the reason I included it.
(Note that lack of emphasis on 'is' is mine. I also do not link 'rational' to shut up and multiply in the context of decision making with ethical injunctions. It is more like 'shut up, multiply and then do a sanity check on the result'.)
You're still treating the ethics as a separate step from the math. I'm arguing that the probability of making a mistake in your reasoning should be part of the multiplication: you should be able to assign an exact numerical confidence to your own sanity, and evaluate the expected utility of various courses of action, including but not limited to asking a friend whether you're crazy.
Yes, more or less. I do not rule out returning to math once the injunction is triggered either to reassess the injunction or to consider an exception. That is the point. This is not the same principle as 'allow for the chance that I am crazy'.
If I could do this reliably then I would not need to construct ethical injunctions to protect me from myself. I do not believe you are correctly applying the referenced concepts.
That's like saying "If I could build a house reliably then I would not need to protect myself from the weather." Reliably including the probability of error in your multiplication constitutes following ethical injunctions to protect you from yourself. Ethics does not stop being ethics just because you found out that it can be described mathematically.
I do not agree. We are using the phrase ethical injunction to describe a different concept.
And if there were only two steps...
Right. The assumption is that the final outcome is pass/fail -- either you get enough money and the Singularity is Friendly, or you don't and we all die (hopefully).