= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomanDavis comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, 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 (560)
TVTropes is pretty sure Peter Pettigrew turned himself into Harry's father's rock, instead of a rat.
Peter means rock in Latin/ Greek.
And then was killed when Harry transfigured the rock?
Wouldn't that be funny?
Get all guilty about eating meat and then...
ROCKS ARE SENTIENT!?
Rocks aren't sentient.
(Paperclips are, though.)
Why do you think paperclips are sentient?
Do you value sentience?
Are you saying you don't think paperclips are sentient? Why don't you try saying that right to a paperclip's face-homologue, and see if you can live with yourself after that.
Yes!!! Sentience is GREAT! All sentient beings should be protected! Like humans! And AGIs! And paperclips!
How do you reconcile that with being a paperclip maximizer?
If I had to make a guess, I'd posit that this is a purely rhetorical claim in order to gain favor with humans here who do favor protecting sentient life as a major goal.
It could be that the desire to cooperation is sincere. In movies the 'bad guy' is usually the one that doesn't just have conflicting preferences with the good guys, but is also psychologically incapable of cooperating effectively to reach the goals. There is no good reason that an agent with preferences as 'evil' Clippy's could not effectively cooperate with humans as effectively as we cooperate with each other.
(Although I agree that even in that case there outbust was heavy on the rhetorical flair!)
Why do you insist that something must be made of proteins to be human?
Where did User:JoshuaZ even mention proteins, much less insist that something must be made of them to be human?
Maybe you are projecting your own attitude.
If User:JoshuaZ did not consider the possibility of virtualized humans, why did User:JoshuaZ believe that maximization of paperclips would come at the cost of humans?
See this highly-rated comment from one of the smartest Users here if you still don't understand.
I don't think they are sentient, but am willing to consider evidence otherwise. Have any paperclips even claimed to be sentient?
Which part of the paperclip is the face-homologue?
Have human infants?
It's hard to describe, but I'm told diagrams like on this page help humans locate it.
Human infants exhibit emotive behaviors similar to humans at other stages of development, suggesting they have the same sort of sentience as other humans though with less capacity to describe it.
What evidence is there for paperclips being sentient?
I did not find your diagram helpful.
This is just your motivated cognition working. (Human infants are indeed sentient, but you write as if you can cite arbitrary attributes as evidence for your pre-determined conclusion. The methods you use would not yield reliable conclusions in other areas.)
The fact that they exhibit deep structural similarities with the ultimate purpose of existence.
I do not know how else to help you.