= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 3 - 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 (606)
Dark arts, huh? Sometime ago I put forward the following scenario:
Bob wants to kill a kitten. The FAI wants to save the kitten because it's a good thing according to our CEV. So the FAI threatens Bob with 50 years of torture unless Bob lets the kitten go. The FAI has two distinct reasons why threatening Bob is okay: a) Bob will comply and there will be no need to torture him, b) the FAI is lying anyway. Expected utility reasoning says the FAI is doing the Right Thing. But do we want that?
(Yes, this is yet another riff on consequentialism, deontologism and lying. Should FAIs follow deontological rules? For that matter, should humans?)
Is that actually the FAI's only or best technique?
Off the top of my non-amplified brain:
Reward Fred for not torturing kittens.
Give Fred simulated kittens to torture and deny Fred access to real kittens.
Give Fred something harmless to do which he likes better than torturing kittens.
ETA Convince Fred that torturing kittens is wrong.