Houshalter comments on Human errors, human values - Less Wrong

32 Post author: PhilGoetz 09 April 2011 02:50AM

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

Comments (135)

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

Comment author: Swimmer963 09 April 2011 03:14:21PM 7 points [-]

Most people choose the many dust specks over the torture. Some people argued that "human values" includes having a utility aggregation function that rounds tiny (absolute value) utilities to zero, thus giving the "dust specks" answer. No, Eliezer said; this was an error in human reasoning. Is it an error, or a value?

I'm not sure. I think the answer most people give on this has more to do with fairness than rounding to zero. Yeah, it's annoying for me to get a dust speck in my eye, but it's unfair that someone should be tortured for 50 years just to spare me (and 3^^^3 others) from dust specks. I would choose getting a dust speck in my eye over someone else being tortured, and I think most people are similar enough to me that I can assume the same of the other 3^^^3 people.

Comment author: Houshalter 16 September 2016 11:32:00AM 0 points [-]

But remove human agency and imagine the torturer isn't a person. Say you can remove a dust speck from your eye, but the procedure has a 1/3\^\^\^3 chance of failing and giving you injuries equivalent to torturing you for 50 years.

Now imagine 3\^\^\^3 make a similar choice. One of them will likely fail the procedure and get tortured.