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.

lavalamp comments on A question about Eliezer - Less Wrong Discussion

33 Post author: perpetualpeace1 19 April 2012 05:27PM

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

Comments (158)

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

Comment author: lavalamp 21 April 2012 12:05:16PM 1 point [-]

I don't think it matters how it is defined... One still shouldn't double count the evidence.

Comment author: semianonymous 22 April 2012 10:19:22AM *  0 points [-]

You can eliminate the evidence that you consider double counted, for example grandiose self worth and grandiose plans, though those need to be both present because grandiose self worth without grandiose plans would just indicate some sort of miscommunication (and the self worth metric is more subjective), and are alone much poorer indicators than combined.

In any case accurate estimation of anything of this kind is very difficult. In general one just adopts a strategy such that sociopaths would not have sufficient selfish payoff for cheating it; altruism is far cheaper signal for non-selfish agents; in very simple terms if you give someone $3 for donating $4 to very well verified charity, those who value $4 in charity above $1 in pocket, will accept the deal. You just ensure that there is no selfish gain in transactions, and you're fine; if you don't adopt anti cheat strategy, you will be found and exploited with very high confidence as unlike the iterated prisoner dilemma, cheaters get to choose whom to play with, and get to make signals that make easily cheatable agents play with them; a bad strategy is far more likely to be exploited than any conservative estimate would suggest.