You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

lukeprog comments on What is Eliezer Yudkowsky's meta-ethical theory? - Less Wrong Discussion

33 Post author: lukeprog 29 January 2011 07:58PM

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

Comments (368)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 07:35:02PM 2 points [-]

Sure, the superintelligence thought experiment is not the fully story.

One problem with the suggestion of writing a rule to not alter human brains comes in specifying how the machine is not allowed to alter human brains. I'm skeptical about our ability to specify that rule in a way that does not lead to disastrous consequences. After all, our brains are being modified all the time by the environment, by causes that are on a wide spectrum of 'direct' and 'indirect.'

Other problems with adding such a rule are given here.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 March 2011 08:22:03PM 2 points [-]

(I meant that subjective experience that evaluates situations should be specified using unaltered brains, not that brains shouldn't be altered.)

Comment author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 09:18:57PM 0 points [-]

You've got my curiosity. What does this mean? How would you realize that process in the real world?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2011 10:55:54AM 1 point [-]

Come on, this tiny detail isn't worth the discussion. Classical solution to wireheading, asking the original and not the one under the influence, referring to you-at-certain-time and not just you-concept that resolves to something unpredicted at any given future time in any given possible world, rigid-designator-in-time.