Roko comments on The Social Coprocessor Model - Less Wrong

22 [deleted] 14 May 2010 05:10PM

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

Comments (570)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 21 May 2010 04:58:44PM *  2 points [-]

Do we have a general criterion for deciding these things? Or is it still unresolved in general?

I think it's unresolved in general. I brought up scope insensitivity as a counter-example to the "Godshatter" argument, or at least a strong form of it which says we should keep all of the values that evolution has handed down to us. It seems likely that we shouldn't, but exactly where to draw the line is unclear to me. Still, to me, desire for high status in some small group seems to be the same kind of "crazy" value as scope insensitivity.

In this specific case, it seems to me that there are many aspects of social interaction that are zero-sum or even negative sum. For the purpose of Coherent Extrapolated Volition, zero sum or negative sum elements are like scope insensitivity, i.e. bad.

I wasn't talking about CEV, I was mainly talking about what you or I should value, now, as individuals. I'm not sure that positive-sum/zero-sum has much to do with that.

Comment deleted 21 May 2010 06:10:03PM [-]
Comment author: whpearson 21 May 2010 10:10:03PM 1 point [-]

My guess:

Status should be about gaining allies and mates, correct? Just as charity is about helping people.

Gaining more allies and mates (especially for a male) should be better than gaining fewer agreed? If so, why do maths professors spend so much time and effort trying to gain status in the small world of maths? They would be better off appealing to the lowest common denominator and using their intellect to wow people in something more accessible.

Comment author: Stille 27 May 2010 10:23:10AM 1 point [-]

The quality of the allies also matters. Having allies that can't help you in your chosen goals is a drain on resources.