= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Complexity of Value ≠ Complexity of Outcome - 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 (198)
How do you cash "which computation?" out to logical+physical uncertainty? Do you have in mind some well-defined metamoral computation that would output the answer?
I think you just asked me how to write an FAI. So long as I know that it's made out of logical+physical uncertainty, though, I'm not confused in the same way that I was confused in say 1998.
"Well-specified" may have been too strong a term, then; I meant to include something like CEV as described in 2004.
Is there an infinite regress of not knowing how to compute morality, or how to compute (how to compute morality), or how to compute (how to compute (...)), that you need to resolve; do you currently think you have some idea of how it bottoms out; or is there a third alternative that I should be seeing?