= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on A definition of wireheading - 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 (80)
I agree it's a good post, but it's a bit depressing how common wireheading is by this definition.
Giving head is wireheading, so to speak.
No it isn't, at least for most humans. When most people give head it is because they desire to make someone else have a pleasurable experience, and when most people receive head it is because they want to have a pleasurable experience. They get exactly what they want, not a counterfeit version of what they want. Ditto for masturbation.
I think you are assuming that giving head is wireheading because you are thinking that people don't desire pleasurable sexual experiences as end in themselves, that sex is in fact some instrumental goal towards some other end, like reproduction. But that simply isn't the case. People like sex and sex-like experiences, full stop. Any evolutionary reasons for why we evolved to like them are morally irrelevant historical details.
This is wireheading, but only in the sense that a paperclipper is wireheading when it makes paperclips.
Humans have been given a value system by evolution and act on it, but given the changing environment, the actions do not optimize for the original implicit goal of evolution.
A paperclipper is given a goal system by its creator and it acts on it, but since the engineer did not think it through properly, its goal system does not match the actual goals of the engineer.
And so, I would not call it wireheading.
Agreed. Paperclipping and oral sex are both not wireheading, because they fulfill the goal systems of the agents doing them perfectly, it is the goal system of the creator of the agent that is being subverted.
Well what if they masturbate with a machine, for example "Pris" from Blade Runner, designed to intensify the stimulation?
Or better yet, what if they use a machine which connects directly with the nerves that run to the sex organs in order to make it simpler and easier?
Or better still what if they use a machine which interfaces directly with the brain by means of a wire in order to give the most intense stimulation possible?
If the goal is (sexual) pleasure, then none of these things are wireheading?
And isn't putting a wire into one's brain in order to get pleasure pretty much automatically wireheading by any reasonable definition?
So it's not wireheading if you put a wire into your brain to give yourself intense sexual stimulation? How can that not be wireheading?
When I say that people want "sex and sex like experiences" I don't just mean they want an orgasm or pleasure. The positive nature of a sexual experience has many different facets (companionship, love, etc.), pleasure is just one facet (albeit a very important one). Giving head contains pretty much all of those facets, so it isn't wireheading.
In each of the examples you give you gradually remove every other facet of sexual experiences other than pleasure, until only pleasure is left. That is how the OP defines wireheading, simplifying one's utility function and then satisfying the simplified version, even in instances where it is different than the real one.
If we go with the definition of "wireheading" as "simplifying one's utility function and then following the simplified version even in instances where it conflicts with the real one," then putting a wire into your brain to give yourself sexual stimulation is wireheading if what you really want to do is have sex. By contrast, if all you really want is pleasure, then it isn't wireheading.
So if somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life, and decides to do so by literally having himself wireheaded, then that person does not count as a "wirehead"?
If "maximize pleasure" was actually that person's utility function, then no. But in practice "somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life" sounds to me more like someone who is wrong about their utility function. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about all the complicated things I think I want, and pleasure really is the only important thing.
Or possibly it's a decision like "Maximizing pleasure is the aspect of my utility function I should focus on now" in which case wireheading is also the wrong move.
Well how do you know what somebody's true utility function is? Or even whether they have one?
You don't; moreover, to me at least, it's probably not even immediately obvious what I truly value. Which is how it happens that someone can be wrong about what they want.
But most people are probably alike to an extent, so if you figure out that maximizing pleasure isn't the only thing that's important to you, you might suspect that other people also care about other things besides maximizing pleasure.
Well then how do you know your own utility function? Is there any way in principle to test it? Is there any way to know that you are wrong about what you want?
Yes, if their decision is correct and you are using the definition of "wireheading" established in the OP. I believe our disagreement is an example of disrupting definitions. The definition of of "wireheading" established by the OP is different from a more common definition "inserting a stimulating wire in the brain."
Well I am trying to figure (among other things) out if the OP has a reasonable definition of wireheading. It seems to me that any reasonable definition of "wireheading" should include a situation where a person decides to enhance or maximize his pleasure and to do so uses some kind of device to directly stimulate the pleasure centers in his brain.
Let me ask you this: Can you give me a couple examples of things which definitely are wireheading using your view of the OP's definition? For example, is there any situation where eating a particular food would be considered "wireheading" by the OP's definition?
Imagine Stan the Family Man, a man who loves his family, and wants his family to be safe, and derives great happiness from knowing his family is safe. Stan mistakenly believes that, because being with his family makes him happy, that happiness is his true goal, and the safety of his family is but a means to that end.
Stan is kidnapped by Master Menace, a mad scientist who is a master of brainwashing. Master Menace gives Stan two choices: 1. He will have Stan's family killed and then brainwash Stan so that he believes his family is alive. 2. He will give Stan's family a billion dollars, then brainwash Stan to think his family has been killed.
After Stan makes his decision Master Menace will erase the memory of making it from Stan's mind, and he will keep Stan imprisoned in his Fortress of Doom, so there is no chance that Stan will ever discover he is brainwashed.
Stan, because he mistakenly believes he values his family's safety as a means to obtaining happiness, has Master Menace kill them. Then he is brainwashed and is happy to believe his family is safe. That is wireheading.
Or imagine an agent that has other values than pleasure and happiness. A human being, for instance. However, even though it has other values, pleasure and happiness are very important to this agent, and when it obtains its goals in life it usually becomes happy and experiences pleasure. Because experiencing pleasure and happiness are highly correlated with this agent getting what it wants, it mistakenly thinks that they are all it wants. So it inserts a wire into its head that makes it feel happiness and pleasure without having to actually achieve any goals in order to do so. That is wireheading.
Yes. Imagine a person who loves eating candy and sweets because they are yummy and delicious. However, he mistakenly thinks that the only reason people eat is to gain nutrition. He forces himself to choke down nutritious health food he hates, because they are more nutritious then candy and sweets. That is wireheading. If he understood his utility function properly he'd start eating candy again.
Thank you for providing those examples. Of course the OP is free to define the word "wireheading" any way he likes, but I disagree with his choice of definition.
If somebody decides to directly stimulate his brain in order to obtain the good feeling which results, and in fact does so, and in fact gets a good feeling as a result, it should count as "wireheading" by any reasonable definition of "wireheading."
Similarly, the OP mentions heroin use as an example of wireheading but this seems to be a misleading example since most people use and abuse heroin in order to get a good feeling.
I think that the definition the "wireheading" the OP comes up with is a good explanation for why wireheading is bad, even if it doesn't fit with the common understanding of what wireheading is. But again, this is an example of disputing definitions. As long as we agree that:
(1) Simplifying your utility function and then following the simplified version when it conflicts with the real version is bad.
(2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain is almost always an example of doing (1),
then we do not disagree about anything important.
That is true, but most heroin users tend to begin neglecting other things in their life that they value (their family being the most common) for that good feeling, and are often motivated to try quitting because they do that. They seem to have realized they are wireheading.
This means that if a heroin user was capable of overriding their need for heroin whenever it conflicted with their other values then heroin use might not count as wireheading.
I don't quite see how it's a misleading example. They notice something that feels good, associate it with utility, and then keep using it, despite the fact that its only utility is the pleasure they derive from it, and they are sacrificing other utility-values in the process for a total net negative utility.