= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - 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 (898)
That's actually the best definition of "moral progress" that I've seen. A big step up from "more like the values that I currently wish to signal having", the default definition.
People on Lesswrong saying their CEV includes X or leads to Y, are not using the term technically but as a poetic way of saying X and Y look about right to me and I'm confident I'm not wrong. Substituting that into the definition makes it much less impressive for human use. And if you check writing on CEV you see the definition is nearly circular for technical use in FAI design.
Just not true. The writing on CEV does a lot to constrain technical thinking about FAI design. It isn't a complete solution, nor is it presented as one but it certainly does rule out a lot (most) proposals for how an FAI should be designed and created. It simply doesn't fit the definition "circular".
(I had previously ignored this comment but upvotes as of now suggest that it may be successful in being actively misleading! As such, rejecting it seems more important.)
We seem to have a misunderstanding. Lots of writing on CEV refers to something called moral development or moral progress. I was criticizing the usefulness of the quoted definition of this something to CEV development not work on CEV in general. I've edited the sentence somewhat to clarify that.
Perhaps. If so we can curse our shared language. I was replying to the below quote but I notice "its" isn't a unique reference!