= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Two questions about CEV that worry me - 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 (137)
Yes. I expect CEV, if it works as advertised, to lead to a state that almost all humans (as they are today, with no major cognitive changes) would see as an acceptable compromise, an improvement over things today, but far worse than their personal desires implemented at the expense of the rest of humankind.
Therefore, while working on CEV of humanity might be a good compromise and cooperation, I expect any group working on it to prefer to implement that group's CEV, instead.
You say that you (and all people on this project) really prefer to take the CEV of all humanity. Please explain to me why - I honestly don't understand. How did you end up with a rare preference among humans, that says "satisfy all humans even though their desires might be hateful to me"?
"but far worse than their personal desires implemented at the expense of the rest of humankind."
uh....i thought this was sort of the point. also, given holodecks (or experience machines of any sort), I disagree.
EDIT: never mind, conversational context mismatch.
If that's the point, then why does EY prefer it over implementing the CEV of himself and a small group of other people?
As for holodecks (and simulations), as long as people are aware they are in a simulation, I think many would care no less about the state of the external world. (At a minimum they must care somewhat, to make sure their simulation continues to run.)