= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MixedNuts comments on Principals, agents, negotiation, and precommitments - 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 (27)
Aren't you just neglecting that humans can't self-modify much?
No, and in particular certainly not just. Even if we decided that "read about some decision theory and better understand how to make decisions" doesn't qualify as "change your source code" the other option of "just not do them" requires no change.
Have you ever heard of akrasia?
Akrasia is one of thousands of things that I have heard of that do not seem particularly salient to the point.
I mean, among humans "just not doing things" takes, you know, willpower.
Yes, that is what akrasia means. I reaffirm both my ancestor comments.
My point is that in some cases the “option of "just not do them"” does require a change (if you count precommitting devices and the like as changes). There are people who wouldn't be able to successfully resolve to (say) just stop smoking, they'd have to somehow prevent their future selves from doing so -- which does count as a change IMO.
I understand what your are saying about akrasia and maintain that the intended rhetorical point of your question is not especially relevant to it's context. You are arguing against a position I wouldn't support so increasingly detailed explanations of something that was trivial to begin with aren't especially useful.
Obviously quitting smoking counts as change and involves enormous akrasia problems. An example of something that doesn't count as changing is just not negotiating in a certain situation because you are one of the many people who are predisposed to just not negotiate in such situations. That actually means not changing instead of changing (in response to pressure from a naive decision theory or naive decision theorist that asserts that negotiating is the rational choice when precommitment isn't possible.)
The problem with MixedNut's claim:
... wasn't that humans in fact can self modify a lot (they can't). The problem was that this premise doesn't weaken Eliezer's point significantly even though it is true.