= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
chron comments on Heroin model: AI "manipulates" "unmanipulatable" reward - All
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 (10)
Well in a sense U(++,-) itself contradicts μ. After all in when given heroin the human seeks it out and acquires more utility than not seeking it out, why doesn't the human seek it out volunterily?
Imagine a drug with no effect except that it cures its own (very bad) withdrawal symptoms. There's no benefit to taking it once, but once you've been exposed, it's beneficial to keep taking more because not taking it makes you feel very bad.
Or even just a drug you enjoy much more than you expected...
And in that case U(++,-) doesn't imply that forcing people on the drug increases utility.
It implies it only in combination with the false premise that peoples' actions accurately reflect the utility function we want to maximize.
Replace "force the human to take heroin" with "gives the human a single sock" and "the human subsequently seeks out heroin" with "the human subsequently seeks out another sock". The formal structure of this can correspond to something quite acceptable.