thomblake comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (513)
Tags: meta

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 09:26:01PM 1 point [-]

Eliezer equates reflective consistency (a la CEV) with alignment with the big blob of computation he calls "right"

He most certainly does not.

Comment author: steven0461 17 April 2012 02:07:34AM 2 points [-]

Relevant quote from Morality as Fixed Computation:

But the key notion is the idea that what we name by 'right' is a fixed question, or perhaps a fixed framework. We can encounter moral arguments that modify our terminal values, and even encounter moral arguments that modify what we count as a moral argument; nonetheless, it all grows out of a particular starting point. We do not experience ourselves as embodying the question "What will I decide to do?" which would be a Type 2 calculator; anything we decided would thereby become right. We experience ourselves as asking the embodied question: "What will save my friends, and my people, from getting hurt? How can we all have more fun? ..." where the "..." is around a thousand other things.

So 'I should X' does not mean that I would attempt to X were I fully informed.

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:24:18PM 0 points [-]

Thanks - I hope you're providing that as evidence for my point.

Comment author: steven0461 17 April 2012 08:10:41PM *  0 points [-]

Sort of. It certainly means he doesn't define morality as extrapolated volition. (But maybe "equate" meant something looser than that?)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 20 April 2012 05:19:44AM 1 point [-]

Aghhhh this is so confusing. Now I'm left thinking both you and Wei Dai have furnished quotes supporting my position, User:thomblake has interpreted your quote as supporting his position, and neither User:thomblake nor User:gjm have replied to Wei Dai's quote so I don't know if they'd interpret it as evidence of their position too! I guess I'll just assume I'm wrong in the meantime.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 17 April 2012 01:21:06AM 0 points [-]

Now two people have said the exact opposite things both of which disagree with me. :( Now I don't know how to update. I plan on re-reading the relevant stuff anyway.

Comment author: gjm 17 April 2012 01:37:55AM 0 points [-]

If you mean me and thomblake, I don't see how we're saying exact opposite things, or even slightly opposite things. We do both disagree with you, though.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 17 April 2012 01:47:53AM 2 points [-]

I guess I can interpret User:thomblake two ways, but apparently my preferred way isn't correct. Let me rephrase what you said from memory. It was like, "right is defined as the output of something like CEV, but that doesn't mean that individuals won't upon reflection differ substantially". User:thomblake seemed to be saying "Eliezer doesn't try to equate those two or define one as the other", not "Eliezer defines right as CEV, he doesn't equate it with CEV". But you think User:thomblake intended the latter? Also, have I fairly characterized your position?

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:14:34PM *  1 point [-]

Eliezer defines right as CEV, he doesn't equate it with CEV

I definitely meant the latter, and I might be persuaded of the former.

Though "define" still seems like the wrong word. More like, " 'right' is defined as *point at big blob of poetry*, and I expect it will be correctly found via the process of CEV." - but that's still off-the-cuff.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 17 April 2012 12:26:47PM 1 point [-]

Thanks much; I'll keep your opinion in mind while re-reading the meta-ethics sequence/CEV/CFAI. I might be being unduly uncharitable to Eliezer as a reaction to noticing that I was unduly (objectively-unjustifiably) trusting him. (This would have been a year or two ago.) (I notice that many people seem to unjustifiably disparage Eliezer's ideas, but then again I notice that many people seem to unjustifiably anti-disparage (praise, re-confirm, spread) Eliezer's ideas;—so I might be biased.)

(Really freaking drunk, apologies for errors, e.g. poltiically unmotivated adulation/anti-adulation, or excessive self-divulgation. (E.g., I suspect "divulgation" isn't a word.))

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:29:23PM 1 point [-]

I suspect "divulgation" isn't a word.

Not to worry, it means "The act of divulging" or else "public awareness of science" (oddly).

Comment author: [deleted] 17 April 2012 12:32:35PM 0 points [-]

"public awareness of science" (oddly).

I mean, it's not so odd. di-vulgar-tion; the result of making public (something).

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:43:12PM 0 points [-]

di-vulgar-tion

Well,

divulge
divulgate
divulgation

But yeah, I just find it odd that it's a couple of steps removed from the obvious usage. I ask myself, "Why science specifically?" and "Why public awareness rather than making the public aware?"

Comment author: gjm 17 April 2012 10:08:33AM 1 point [-]

I don't know whether thomblake intended the latter, but he certainly didn't say the former. I think you said "Eliezer said A and B", thomblake said "No he didn't", and you are now saying he meant "Eliezer said neither A nor B". I suggest that he said, or at least implied, something rather like A, and would fiercely repudiate B.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit