= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
J_Taylor comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - 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)
Comments (857)
Alternative which I view as being more frightening:
For any given human, its CEV involves that human winning at zero-sum, possibly even negative-sum, games (status would be one of these). As such, the best way to maximize the current collection of humanity's CEV would be to create new agents to which current humans defeat in zero-sum games.
That is, for every current human, create a host of new agents (all of whom are quite human for all intents and purposes) of whom the current human is emperor.
Note: if this is the case, I doubt pseudo-agents will suffice. Just as humans do not wish to love pseudo-humans (that is, humans who cannot really love), humans do not wish to win zero-sum games against pseudo-humans (that is, humans who cannot really lose zero-sum games, with all that losing these games entails).
So basically, what you're saying is that CEV might work out to everyone getting their own secret volcano lair filled with harems of catpersons? Now where have I heard this idea before...
CEV will probably have many contributions from people who don't want the AI to create almost-human slaves. Do you think such desires will lose out in reflective equiibrium?
I never said they would be slaves, although I certainly did imply it. I probably should not have said 'emperor.' A more appropriate term would have been something like 'grand-champion' or 'big winner.'
I certainly hope not. However, I personally have no idea.
As near as I can tell I'm -want/+like/-approve on both wireheading and emperor-like superiority.
Some portrayals of heaven involve each person having dominion over a host of angels. One can only hope this allows for live action real-time strategy.
I am willing to admit to having a desire to feel superior to other people.
Same here, but I'm willing to settle for "equal"
you're such a good person for that.
Do we have to win at the same game to be happy? It looks like for different people different games matter and if you mostly beat scarcity you reduce the factor of pragmatically useful prizes.
I have no idea. However, 'yes' is the more cynical answer, to let us assume it is the case for this particular purpose.
I will take "yes" as an answer designed to maximize scare-factor.
But frankly, do you have any evidence for this?
Maybe I am too far atypical in that I have experienced feeling of negative utility because of a victory (and it was a consequence-free and non-cheating victory, so it is a direct thing).
But look at scientists, businessmen and writers. Looks like many people in these three groups manage to look down at the two other groups. Some X try to do Y, fail, and do not care about that failure because X is what matters.
Given enough collective resources, it seems logical to invest them into designating more distinct games and ensuring that every field is filled with people who are most suitable for it. Wait, did I just repeat what Adam Smith said about separation of labour? Maybe it is not too bad, though.