= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Hacking the CEV for Fun and Profit - 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 (194)
I agree. (Presumably we shouldn't include volitions of tigers in the mix, and the same should go for the actually evil alien mutants.)
So, how do we decide who's evil?
A surprisingly good heuristic would be "choose only humans".
If I were to implement CEV, I'd start with only biological, non-uploaded, non-duplicated, non-mentally ill, naturally born adult humans, and then let their CEV decide whether to include others.
What consitutes mental ilness is a horrible can of worms. Even defining the borders of what consitutes brain damage is terribly hard.
Is there a biological tech level you're expecting when building an FAI becomes possible?
What do you mean by "naturally born"? Are artificial wombs a problem?
It's conceivable that children have important input for what children need that adults have for the most part forgotten.
I don't know. We don't actually need any technology other than Python and vi. ;) But it's possible uploads, cloning, genetic engineering, and so forth will be common then.
Yes, just to be safe, we should avoid anyone born through IVF, for instance, or whose birth was created or assisted in a lab, or who experienced any genetic modification. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line: fertility drugs might be ok. I meant anyone conceived through normal intercourse without any technological intervention. Such people can be added in later if the CEV of the others wants them added.
Yes, this is a really good point, but CEV adds in what we would add in if we knew more and remembered more.
That's terrible. You're letting in people who are mutated in all sorts of ways through stupid, random, 'natural' processes, but not those who have the power of human intelligence overriding the choices of the blind idiot god. If the extropians/transhumanists make any headway with germline genetic engineering, I want those people in charge.
Exclude people who aren't different or problematic in any perceptible way because of your yuck factor?
Minor point, but are turkey basters technology?
Aside from the problem of leaving out what seems to be obviously part of the human range, I think that institutionalizing that distinction for something so crucial would lead to prejudice.
I have no particular yuck factor involving IVF. And you're right that it's not obvious where to draw the line with things like turkey basters. To be safe, I'd exclude them.
Keep in mind that this is just for the first round, and the first round group would presumably decide to expand the pool of people. It's not permanently institutionalized. It's just a safety precaution, because the future of humanity is at stake.
What risk are you trying to protect against?
Something like the Dr. Evil CEV hack described in the main post. Essentially, we want to block out any way of creating new humans that could be used to override CEV, so it makes sense to start by blocking out all humans created artificially. It might also be a good idea to require the humans to have been born before a certain time, say 2005, so no humans created after 2005 can affect CEV (at least in the first round).
Turkey basters are probably not a threat. However, there's an advantage to being overly conservative here. The very small number of people created or modified through some sort of artificial means for non-CEV-hacking reasons can be added in after subsequent rounds of CEV. But if the first round includes ten trillion hacked humans by mistake, it will be too late to remove them because they'll outvote everyone else.
Ha. Okay, that's a good one.
You might find that deciding who's mentally ill is a little harder, but the other criteria should be reasonably easy to define, and there are no obvious failure conditions. Let me think this over for a bit. :)
Define human.
Featherless biped.
Ten thousand years later, postkangaroo children learn from their history books about Kutta, the one who has chosen to share the future with his marsupial brothers and sisters :)
If an upload remembers having had legs, and/or is motivated to acquire for itself a body with exactly two legs and no feathers, please explain either how this definition would adequately exclude uploads or why you are opposed to equal rights for very young children (not yet capable of walking upright) and amputees.
Includes sexbots, and excludes uploaded versions of me.
The point is to exclude uploaded versions of you. I'm more concerned about including plucked chickens.
BTW, what is the difference between a sexbot and a catgirl?
A sexbot is a robot for sex -- still a human under the featherless biped definition as long as has two legs and no feathers.
If the point is to exclude "uploaded versions", what counts as uploaded? How about if I transfer my mind (brain state) to another human body? If that makes me still a human, what rational basis is there for defining a mind-body system as human or not based on the kind of the body it is running in?