= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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)
You missed my point 3 times out of 3. Wait, I'll put down the flyswatter and pick up this hammer...:
Excluding certain persons from CEV creates issues that CEV was intended to resolve in the first place. The mechanic you suggest - excluding persons that YOU deem to be unfit - might look attractive to you, but it will not be universally acceptable.
Note that "our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, were smarter..." etc . The EVs of yourself and that suicidal fanatic should be pretty well aligned - you both probably value freedom, justice, friendship, security and like good food, sex and World of Warcraft(1)... you just don't know why he believes that suicidal fanaticism is the right way under his circumstances, and he is, perhaps, not smart enough to see other options to strive for his values.
Can I also ask you to re-read CEV, paying particular attention to Q4 and Q8 in the PAQ section? They deal with the instinctive discomfort of including everyone in the CEV.
(1) that was a backhand with the flyswatter, which I grabbed with my left hand just then.
No. I will NOT assume that extrapolating the volition of people with vastly different preferences to me will magically make them compatible with mine. The universe is just not that convenient. Pretending it is while implementing a FAI is suicidally naive.
I'm familiar with the document, as well as approximately everything else said on the subject here, even in passing. This includes Eliezer propozing ad-hoc work arounds to the "What if people are jerks?" problem.