= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multipartite 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 unfortunately lack time at the moment; rather than write a badly-thought-out response to the complete structure of reasoning considered, I will for the moment write fully-thought-out thoughts on minor parts thereof that my (?) mind/curiosity has seized on.
'As for “taking over the world by proxy”, again SUAM applies.': this sentence stands out, but glancing upwards and downwards does not immediately reveal what SUAM refers to. Ctrl+F and looking at all appearances of the term SUAM on the page does not reveal what SUAM refers to. The first page of Google results for 'SUAM' does not reveal what SUAM refers to.
Hopefully SUAM is a reference to an S* U* A* M* acronym used elsewhere in the article or in a different well-known article, but a suggestion may be helpful that if the first then S* U* A* M* (SUAM) would be convenient in terms of phrase->acronym, and if the second then a reference to the location or else the expanded form of the acronym would be convenient.
The diamond case: Even if I did want a diamond, I simulate that I would feel nervous, alarmed even, if I indicated that I wanted it to bring me one box and I was brought a different box instead. I'm reminded--though this is not directly relevant--of Google searches, where I on occasion look up a rare word I'm unfamiliar with, and instead am given a page of results for a different (more common) word, with a question at the top asking me if I instead want to search for the word I searched for.
For Google, I would be much less frustrated if it always gave me the results I asked for, and maybe asked if I wanted to search for something else. (That way, when I do misspell something, I'm rightfully annoyed at myself and rightfully pleased with the search engine's consistent behaviour.) For the diamond case, I would be happy if it for instance noticed that I wanted the diamond and alerted me to its actual location, giving me a chance to change my official decision.
Otherwise, I would be quite worried about it making other such decisions without my official consent, such as "Hmm, you say you want to learn about these interesting branches of physics, but I can tell that you say that because you anticipate doing so will make you happy, so I'll ignore your request and pump your brain full of drugs instead forever.". Even if in most cases the outcome is acceptable, for something to second-guess your desires at all means there's always the possibility of irrevocably going against your will.
People may worry that a life of getting whatever one wants(/asks for) may not be ideal, but I'm reminded of the immortality/bat argument in that a person who gets whatever that person wants would probably not want to give that up for the sake of the benefits that would arguably come with not having those advantages.
In a more general sense, given that I already possess priorities and want them to be fulfilled (and know how I want to fulfill them), I would appreciate an entity helping me to do so, but would not want an entity to fulfill priorities that I don't hold or try to fulfill them in ways which conflict with my chosen methods of fulfilling them. If creating something that would act according to what one woul want if one /were/ more intelligent or more moral or more altruistic, then A) that would only be desirable if one were such a person currently instead of being the current self, or B) that would be a good upgraded-replacement-self to let loose on the universe while oneself ceasing to exist without seeking to have one's own will be done (other than on that matter of self-replacement).
Reading other comments, I note my thoughts on the undesirability of extrapolation have largely been addressed elsewhere already.
Current thoughts on giving higher preference to a subset:
Though one would be happy with a world reworked to fit one's personal system of values, others likely would not be. Though selected others would be happy with a world reworked to fit their agreed system of values, others likely would not be. Moreover, assuming changes over time, even if such is held to a certain degree at one point in time, changes based on that may turn out to be regrettable.
Given that one's own position (and those of any other subset) are liable to be riddled with flaws, multiplying may dictate that some alternative to the current situation in the world be provided, but it does not necessarily dictate that one must impose one subset's values on the rest of the world to the opposition of that rest of the world.
Imposition of peace on those filled with hatred who thickly desire war results in a worsening of those individuals' situation. Imposition of war on those filled with love who strongly esire peace results in a worsening of those individuals' situation. Taking it as given that each subset's ideal outcome differs significantly from that of every other subset in the world, any overall change according to the will of one subset seems liable to yield more opposition and resentment than it does approval and gratitude.
Notably, when thinking up a movement worth supporting, such an action is frightening and unstable--people with differing opinions climbing over each other to be the ones who determine the shape of the future for the rest.
What, then, is an acceptable approach by which the wills coincide of all these people who are opposed to the wills of other groups being imposed on the unwilling?
Perhaps to not remake the world in your own image, or even in the image of people you choose to be fit to remake the world in their own image, or even the image of people someone you know nothing about chose to be fit to remake the world in their own image.
Perhaps a goal worth cooperating towards and joining everyone's forces together to work towards is that of an alternative, or perhaps many, which people can choose to join and will be imposed on all willing and only those who are willing.
For those who dislike the system others choose, let them stay as they are. For those who like such systems more than their current situation, let them leave and be happier.
Leave the technophiles to their technophilia, the... actually I can't select other groups, because who would join and who would stay depends on what gets made. Perhaps it might end up with different social groups existing under the separate jurisdictions of different systems, while all those who preferred their current state to any systems as yet created remained on Earth.
A non-interference arrangement with free-to-enter alternatives for all who prefer it to the default situation: while maybe not anyone's ideal, hopefully something that all can agree is better, and something that to no one is in fact worse.
(Well, maybe to those people who have reasons for not wanting chunks of the population to leave in search of a better life..? Hmm.)