= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on Something's Wrong - 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 (161)
Clippy is an agent defined by a certain inhuman ethics. Therefore, your test distinguishes ethical questions from non-ethical questions.
There are meaningless non-ethical questions: "What's a froob?" Human: "I don't know." Clippy: "I don't know."
There are only non-meaningless ethical questions with some kind of assumed axiom that allows us to cross the fact-value distinction, such as Eliezer's meta-ethics or "one should always act so as to maximize paperclips."
In general: Positivism teaches us to ignore many things we should not ignore. Rationalism, however, teaches us to ignore some things, but it does not teach us to ignore ethical questions.
Experiment: ask Clippy a question about decision theory.
Hey Clippy. What decision theory do you use to determine how your actions produce paperclips?
I can't really explain it, I just think about it and then something seems to be the "right" thing to do -- or vice versa. It does involve a lot of calculations involving the mechanics of paperclips. And I know that I would one-box on the "Newcomb's problem" that is talked about here, and I would pay on the "Parfit's Hitchhiker" problem, unless of course my rescue deprived the universe of paperclips on net.