= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa 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)
That would imply that it was some sort of meta-negative utility, if I'm understanding you correctly. But if you're asking if I endorse self modifying to give up a value given near certainty of it being a lost cause, the answer is yes.
No, and that's why I suspect I'm misunderstanding. The same sort of negative utility - if you see something that gives you negative utility, you get negative utility and that - the fact that you got negative utility from something - gives you even more negative utility!
(Presumably, ever-smaller amounts, to prevent this running to infinity. Unless this value has an exception for it's own negative utility, I suppose?)
I mean, as a utility maximiser, that must be the reason you wanted to stop yourself from getting negative utility from things when those things would continue anyway; because you attach negative utility ... to attaching negative utility!
This is confusing me just writing it ... but I hope you see what I mean.
I think it might be useful here to draw on the distinction between trying to help and trying to obtain warm fuzzies. If something bad is happening and it's impossible for me to do anything about it, I'd rather not get anti-warm fuzzies on top of that.
Ah, that does make things much clearer. Thanks!
Yup, warm fuzzies were the thing missing from my model. Gotta take them into account.