I'm also assuming you're referring to the space of all possible agents, rather than the space of all actual agents, because goodness, there's LOTS that 90+% of all humans agree on.
Yeah.
My point is that if you flip your utility function, it flips your actions. It just doesn't seem that way because if you flip your utility function, and future!your utility function, then a lot of actions stay the same.
Not necessarily. Suppose there are two switches next to each other: switch A and switch B. If you leave switch A alone, I'll write it "a", if you flip it, it's "A." The payoffs look like this:
ab: +1
aB: -1
Ab: +3
AB: -3
Today's post, Invisible Frameworks was originally published on 22 August 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was No License To Be Human, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.