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.

DanArmak comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 4 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: lukeprog 27 August 2012 12:04AM

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

Comments (179)

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

Comment author: DanArmak 28 August 2012 08:11:34PM 2 points [-]

I've asked this several times before. As far as I can make out, no (published) text answers this question. (If I'm wrong I am very interested in learning about it.)

The CEV doc assumes without any proof, not just that we (or a superintelligent FAI) will find a reconciling strategy for CEV, but that such a strategy exists to be found. It assumes that there is a unique such strategy that can be defined in some way that everyone could agree about. This seems to either invite a recursion (everyone does not agree about metaethics, CEV is needed to resolve this, but we don't agree about the CEV algorithm or inputs); or else to involve moral realism.