Philip_W comments on Epilogue: Atonement (8/8) - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 February 2009 11:52AM

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

Comments (179)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Hul-Gil 30 March 2012 04:55:10AM *  3 points [-]

This is a good comment. I don't understand why this choice was made, or why Mr. Yudkowsky - presumably - thinks that it was the right choice to make. The Superhappy proposal was reasonable, and only instinctive disgust at the idea of eating babies - even non-sentient ones - prevented the acceptance of their offer. (Or was it that humans want to keep suffering, because it's somehow intrinsic to "being human", which is important because... uh... because...) For that small sacrifice, a paradise could have been created. Instead, billions die and humans remain unhappy sufferers.

Very disappointing.

Comment author: Philip_W 12 April 2013 02:37:38PM 1 point [-]

See the matter of the pie. Xannon's proposal is identical to the Super Happies'; meta-ethical "fairness". Regardless of how you might feel about a Super Happy future, the Suffering Rapists hated it. Rational agents will choose the option which maximizes expected utility, accepting the deal didn't maximise expected utility, so the deal was rejected. That's all there is to it.