Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Torture vs. Dust Specks - Less Wrong

39 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2007 02:50AM

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

Comments (596)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 February 2008 05:22:00AM 3 points [-]

Following your heart and not your head - refusing to multiply - has also wrought plenty of havoc on the world, historically speaking. It's a questionable assertion (to say the least) that condoning irrationality has less damaging side effects than condoning torture.

Comment author: rkyeun 02 August 2012 12:28:01AM *  7 points [-]

I think you've constructed your utility wrong in this instance. Without losing track of scope, we have 3^^^3 motes of dust in 3^^^3 eyes. And yes, that outweighs 50 years of torture, if and only if people have zero tolerance. But people don't break down into sobbing messes at the (literally at least) slightest provocation. There is a small threshold of badness that can happen to someone without them caring, and as long as all 3^^^3 of them only get epsilon below that, the total suffering for all 3^^^3 of them summed is exactly 0. We have 3^^^3 people, and 3^^^3 motes of dust, but also 3^^^3 separate emotional shock absorbers that take that speck of dust without flinching.

It is non-linear. If you keep adding dust, eventually it starts breaking people's shock absorbers. And once those 3^^^3 people start experiencing nonzero suffering, it would quickly add up to more than fifty man-years of torture. Then the equation stops favoring dust motes. And here I hope I have some other recourse, because "If you ever find yourself thinking that torture is the right thing to do," is one of my warnings. I hope I can come out clever enough to take a third option where nobody gets tortured.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 13 February 2014 06:45:21PM 0 points [-]

I wish I could upvote this 3^^^3 times.

Comment author: gjm 13 February 2014 06:52:00PM 1 point [-]

that can happen to someone without them noticing

But Eliezer's original description said this:

suppose a dust speck floated into your eye and irritated it just a little, for a fraction of a second, barely enough to make you notice before you blink and wipe away the dust speck.

It's an essential part of the setup that the disutility of a "dust speck" is not zero.

Comment author: rkyeun 16 March 2014 05:21:27AM *  0 points [-]

Let me change "noticing" to "caring" then. Thank you for the correction.