pragmatist comments on Thought experiment: The transhuman pedophile - Less Wrong

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 17 September 2013 10:38PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (74)
Tags: values terminal rationality goals ai

Comments (74)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 September 2013 02:38:59PM 5 points [-]

(shrug) If X values being attracted to children while not having sex with them, then I really don't see the issue. Great, if that's what he wants, he can do that... why would he change anything? Why would anyone expect him to change anything?

Comment author: pragmatist 18 September 2013 04:11:17PM *  2 points [-]

Because constantly being in a state in which he is attracted to children substantially increases the chance that he will cave and end up raping a child, perhaps. It's basically valuing something that strongly incentivizes you to do X while simulataneously strongly disvaluing actually doing X. A dangerously unstable situation.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 September 2013 04:25:12PM 0 points [-]

Sure.

So, let me try to summarize... consider two values: (V1) having sex with children, and (V2) not having sex with children.

  • If we assume X has (V1 and NOT V2) my original comments apply.
  • If we assume X has (V2 and NOT V1) my response to Luke applies.
  • If we assume X has (V1 and V2) I'm not sure the OP makes any sense at all, but I agree with you that the situation is unstable.
  • Just for completeness: if we assume X has NOT(V1 OR V2) I'm fairly sure the OP makes no sense.
Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit