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.

CharlesR comments on Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: lukeprog 26 November 2011 08:05AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (133)
Tags: ai_risk intelligence_explosion

Comments (133)

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

Comment author: CharlesR 08 December 2011 05:29:08AM 0 points [-]

From Scope Insensitivity:

Once upon a time, three groups of subjects were asked how much they would pay to save 2000 / 20000 / 200000 migrating birds from drowning in uncovered oil ponds. The groups respectively answered $80, $78, and $88 [1]. This is scope insensitivity or scope neglect: the number of birds saved - the scope of the altruistic action - had little effect on willingness to pay.

Now I haven't read the paper, but this implies there is only one charity doing the asking. First they ask how much you would give to save 2000 birds? You say, "$100." Then they ask you the same thing again, just changing the number. You still say, "$100. It's all I have." So what's wrong with that?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 December 2011 04:24:35PM 0 points [-]

Agreed: if I assume that there's a hard upper limit being externally imposed on those answers (e.g., that I only have $80, $78, and $88 to spend in the first place, and that even the least valuable of the three choices is worth more to me than everything I have to spend) then those answers don't demonstrate interesting scope insensitivity.

There's nothing wrong with that conclusion, given those assumptions.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit