= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story - 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 (399)
Hmm. If you are currently below net neutral impact, then continued existence is at least as important as improving your impact on the world. If you are currently above net neutral impact, you should probably end your existence as soon as feasible to ensure you don't accidentally cause or contribute to some event that brings your net impact way down to negatives.
Isn't this just the Sunk Cost fallacy applied in reverse?
Not this time. According to the specified value system the approach is rational. (The sunk cost fallacy is fallacious due to the way it interacts with sane human values not 'fear net negative' craziness.)
Ah, right. I should have attended more carefully to context.
I don't aim solely to have a net positive impact. I aim to have as large a net positive impact as possible. My fear is not the only contributing factor to my utility function.
So, if I prove capable of pulling out of the significant pit of negative impact I have produced during childhood and adolescence, I will hopefully not commit suicide until senility, when there is good reason to expect my impact to go negative again.*
*(I also have a couple of mental blocks that make me committing suicide unlikely. I haven't attempted it since producing them, although their purpose was unrelated.)