Jonii comments on Criticisms of CEV (request for links) - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Kevin 16 November 2010 04:02AM

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

Comments (24)

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

Comment author: Jonii 16 November 2010 09:24:17PM 1 point [-]

The above is a caricature of 'coherence' as presented in the May 2004 document. If someone else can provide a better interpretation, that would be welcome.

It seemed accurate to me. Also, I didn't find any problems from it that would seem frightening or so. Was it supposed to be problematic in some way?

Comment author: Perplexed 16 November 2010 10:06:10PM 2 points [-]

Was it supposed to be problematic in some way?

You mean other than being politically naive and likely to get a lot of people killed? You are asking what I have against it personally, if it should somehow come to pass?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure. I usually try to base my important opinions on some kind of facts, on 'official' explanations. But we don't have those here. So I am guessing. But I do strongly suspect that my fundamental values are very different than those of the author of CEV. Because I am not laboring under the delusion that everyone else is just like me, ... only stupider. I know that human values are diverse, and that any kind of collective set of values must be negotiated, rather than somehow 'extrapolated'.

Comment author: timtyler 16 November 2010 11:13:14PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think it has much chance of being implemented - so, I figure, there is not much reason to worry about it.

Comment author: Perplexed 16 November 2010 11:16:12PM 0 points [-]

Thank you for your signal, I guess.

Comment author: Jonii 16 November 2010 11:03:37PM 0 points [-]

So you're bound to end up losing in this game, anyway, right? Negotiation in itself won't bring you any additional power over the coherent extrapolated volition of humanity to change the future of the universe. If others think very much unlike you, you need to overpower them to bring your values back to the game or perish in the attempt.

Comment author: Perplexed 16 November 2010 11:12:31PM 2 points [-]

I don't understand your thinking here at all. Divergent values are not a barrier to negotiation. They are the raw material of negotiation. The barrier to negotiation is communication difficulty and misunderstanding.

Why do you think I lose?

Comment author: Jonii 16 November 2010 11:36:42PM 0 points [-]

Why do you think I lose?

Because there are a lot more of those with values totally different from yours, which made the CEV optimize a future that you didn't like at all. If you're negotiating will all those people, why would they give in to you any more than CEV would optimize for you?

Comment author: Perplexed 17 November 2010 12:27:33AM 2 points [-]

Hmmm. That is not the scenario I was talking about. I was imagining that there would be a large number of people who would feel disenfranchised because their values were considered incoherent (or they were worried that their values might be thought incoherent). This coalition would seize political control of the CEV creation bureaucracy, change "coherent extrapolated" to "collective expressed" and then begin the negotiation process.

Comment author: Jonii 17 November 2010 12:38:35AM 0 points [-]

And? If you have multiple contradictory wishes what to do next, some of them are bound to be unfulfilled. CEV or negotiation are just ways to decide which ones.

Comment author: Perplexed 17 November 2010 01:54:45AM 3 points [-]

Yes, and until someone explains how CEV works, I will prefer negotiation. I understand it, I think it generates the best, fairest results, etc. With AI assistance, some of the communication barriers can be lowered and negotiation will become an even better tool. CEV, on the other hand, is a complete mystery to me.