Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread: February 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: CronoDAS 16 February 2010 08:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (857)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 February 2010 09:06:36PM *  2 points [-]

You don't include cultures in CEV, you filter people through extrapolation of their volition. Even if culture makes value different, "mutilating women" is not a kind of thing that gets through, and so is a broken prototype example for drawing attention to.

In any case, my argument in the above comment was that value should be given (theoretically, if everyone understands the deal and relevant game theory, etc., etc.; realistically, such a deal must be simplified; you may even get away with cheating) according to provided assistance, not according to compatibility of value. If poor compatibility of value prevents from giving assistance, this is an effect of value completely unrelated to post-FAI compatibility, and given that assistance can be given with money, the effect itself doesn't seem real either. You may well exclude people of Myanmar, because they are poor and can't affect your success, but not people of a generous/demanding genocidal cult, for an irrelevant reason that they are evil. Game theory is cynical.

Comment deleted 21 February 2010 11:10:55PM [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 February 2010 11:51:06PM 1 point [-]

how do you know? If enough people want it strongly enough, it might.

How strongly people want something now doesn't matter, reflection has the power to wipe current consensus clean. You are not cooking a mixture of wants, you are letting them fight it out, and a losing want doesn't have to leave any residue. Only to the extent current wants might indicate extrapolated wants, should we take current wants into account.

Comment author: Kevin 21 February 2010 11:28:38PM 0 points [-]

Might "mutilating men" make it through?

(sorry for the euphemism, I mean male circumcision)