= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ikrase comments on Thought experiment: The transhuman pedophile - 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 (74)
No, he terminally values being attracted to children. He could still assign a strongly negative value to actually having sex with children. Good fantasy, bad reality.
Just like I strongly want to maintain my ability to find women other than my wife attractive, even though I assign a strong negative value to following up on those attractions. (one can construct intermediate cases that avoid arguments that not being locked in is instrumentally useful)
That doesn't seem like the usual definition of "pedophile". How does that tie in with "a rational agent should never change it's utility function"?
Incidentally, many people would rather be attracted only to their SO; it's part of the idealised "romantic love" thingy.
The guy in the example happens to terminally value being attracted to children. I didn't mean that that's what being a pedophile means.
Aside from that, I am not sure how the way this ties into "A rational agent should never change its utility function" is unclear - he observes his impulses, interprets them as his goals, and seeks to maintain them.
As for SOs? Yes, I suppose many people would so prefer. I'm not an ideal romantic, and I have had so little trouble avoiding straying that I feel no need to get rid of them to make my life easier.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.