= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on You cannot be mistaken about (not) wanting to wirehead - 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 (79)
It sounds satisfactory for agents that have utility functions. Humans don't (unless you mean implicit utility functions under reflection, to the extent that different possible reflections converge), and I think it's really misleading to talk as if we do.
Also, while this is just me, I strongly doubt our notional-utility-functions-upon-reflection contain anything as specific as preferences about polygamy.
That was just an example; people react differently to the idea that their values may change in the future, depending on the person and depending on the value.