= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vulture comments on Dark Arts of Rationality - 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 (185)
Overall, an excellent post. It brought up some very clever ideas that I had never thought of or previously encountered.
I do, however, think that your colloquial use of the phrase "terminal value" is likely to confuse and/or irritate a lot of the serious analytic-philosophy crowd here; it might be wise to use some other word or other phrase for your meaning, which seems to be closer to "How an idealized[1] utility-maximizing agent would represent its (literal) Terminal Values internally". Perhaps a "Goal-in-itself"? A "motivationally core goal"?
Thanks!
Early on, before "Mind the terminology, here", the ambiguity is intentional. That your terminal goals are not sacred is true both for "utility function end-values" and "actions that are ends unto themselves".
Later on in the post, I am explicit about my usage and consistent with the LessWrong Wiki entry on Terminal Values (which is also dichotomous). Still, I understand that some people are likely to get annoyed: this is difficult to avoid when there is a phrase that means too many things.
For now, I think that the usage is explicit enough in the post, but I do appreciate your input.