= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Branches of rationality - 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 (64)
The link take us to an earlier essay by Anna in which she wrote:
Anna seems to suggest that a person who goes through life with no goals more significant than a day-by-day maximization of utility is somehow 'wasting their potential' (my choice of words). But what arguments exist for the superiority of a life spent pursuing a few big goals over a life spent pursuing a multitude of smaller ones? Arguing that having goals will "help us to achieve what we care about" is pretty clearly circular.
It is easy to come up with arguments against being driven by largish goals and in favor of working for smallish ones. Less risk of having to scrap a work-in-progress inventory should circumstances change. Less danger of becoming a 'by whatever means necessary' megalomaniac who is a danger to the rest of mankind.
Is it equally easy to come up with non-question-begging arguments for setting significant goals for oneself?
One possible line of argument:
If, as you imply, you find it compelling that being a danger to the rest of humankind is something to avoid, then presumably you should also find it compelling that reducing other such dangers is something to seek out.
And it's pretty clear that projects that require more than a day's effort to show results will never be undertaken by a system with no goals larger than day-to-day optimization.
It seems to follow from there that if there exist dangers to humankind that require more than a day's effort to measurably reduce, it's a good idea to have goals larger than day-to-day optimization.