= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on On What Selves Are - CEV sequence - 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 (16)
I have found this, while somewhat better formatted, just as impenetrable as your previous attempts. The "summary" was not very helpful, either. I wish someone who understands your points could summarize what you mean for the simpletons like me.
Sure, why not?
Understanding what a self (and a volition) is matters; CEV relies on extrapolating the volition of selves, and therefore on understanding selves/volitions. But there's no reason to think that there's a unique reduction of "self"; indeed, there's almost certainly not (Diego gives various examples). Also, there's various other things constraining our intuitive definition, like that they be utility maximizing.
One way out for CEV is that the Turing Test is reliable means of identifying a subset of selves; once we can identify an AGI as a self via the Turing Test, it can then itself use the Turing Test to identify (some) other selves.