= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on In favour of a selective CEV initial dynamic - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (110)
I'm not sure this can mean one thing that is also important.
Huh? Yes it can. It means "results in something closer to CEV<everyone> than the alternative does", which is pretty damn important given that it is exactly what the context was talking about.
I agree that context alone pointed to that interpretation, but as that makes your statement a tautology, I thought it more likely than not you were referencing a more general meaning than the one under discussion. This was particularly so because of the connotations of "wary", i.e. "this sort of argument tends to seem more persuasive than it should, but the outside view doesn't rule them out entirely," rather than "arguments of this form are always wrong because they are logically inconsistent".
Because Phlebas's argument is not, in fact, tautologically false and is merely blatantly false I chose to refrain from a (false) accusation of inconsistency.
Here is the post that you linked to, in which you ostensibly prove that an excerpt of my essay was blatantly false:
Phlebas:
wedrifid:
Note that I have made no particular claim in this excerpt about how likely it is that a selective CEV would produce output closer to that of an ideal universal CEV dynamic than a universal CEV would. I merely claimed that a universal CEV dynamic designed by humans is not what humans most desire collectively “by definition”, i.e. it is not logically necessary that it approximates the ideal human-wide CEV (such as a superintelligence might develop) better than the selective CEV.
Here is a comment claiming that CEV most accurately identifies a group’s average desires “by definition” (assuming he doesn’t edit it). So it is not a strawman position that I am criticising in that excerpt.
You argue that even given a suboptimal initial dynamic, the superintelligent AI “can” figure out a better dynamic and implement that instead. Well of course it “can” – nowhere have I denied that the universal CEV might (with strong likelihood in fact) ultimately produce at least as close an approximation to the ideal CEV of humanity as a selective CEV would.
Nonetheless, high probability =/= logical necessity. Therefore you may wish to revisit your accusation of blatant fallacy.
How probable exactly is an interesting question, but best left alone in this comment since I don't wish to muddy the waters regarding the nature of the original statement that you were criticising.