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.

diegocaleiro comments on Amending the "General Pupose Intelligence: Arguing the Orthogonality Thesis" - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: diegocaleiro 13 March 2013 11:21PM

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

Comments (22)

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

Comment author: diegocaleiro 25 March 2013 11:05:41PM 0 points [-]

Lefties and righties is just a convention case, if humans had three arms, two on the right, there might have been a matter of fact as to coming from which arm preference things go better.

I think this fear of other agents taking over the world is some form of reminiscent ingroup outgroup bias. To begin with, on the limit, if you value A B and C intrinsically but you have to do D1 D2 and D3 instrumentally, you may initially think of doing D1 D2 and D3. but what use would it be to fill up your future with that instrumental stuff if you nearly never get A B an C. You'd become just one more stupid replicator fighting for resources. You'd be better off by doing nothing and wishing that, by luck, A B an C were being instantiated by someone less instrumental than yourself.

Comment author: timtyler 25 March 2013 11:33:09PM *  0 points [-]

Lefties and righties is just a convention case, if humans had three arms, two on the right, there might have been a matter of fact as to coming from which arm preference things go better.

Sure, but there are cases where rivals are evenly matched. Lions and tigers, for instance, have different - often conflicting - aims. However, it isn't a walk-over for one team. Of course, you could say whether the lion or tiger genes win is "just a convention" - but to the lions and tigers, it really matters.

To begin with, on the limit, if you value A B and C intrinsically but you have to do D1 D2 and D3 instrumentally, you may initially think of doing D1 D2 and D3. but what use would it be to fill up your future with that instrumental stuff if you nearly never get A B an C [?]

No use. However, our values are not that far from Universal Instrumental Values - because we were built by a process involving a lot of natural selection.

Our choice is more like: do we give up a few of the things we value now - or run the risk of losing many more of them in the future. That leads to the question of how big the risk is - and that turns out to be a tricky issue.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 26 March 2013 02:04:26PM 0 points [-]

Agreed. That tricky issue I suspect might have enormous consequences if reason ends up being highjacked by in-group out-group biases, and the surviving memes end up being those that make us more instrumental, for fear of someone else doing the same.

Comment author: timtyler 26 March 2013 10:58:23PM *  -1 points [-]

I expect that the force that will eventually promote natural values most strongly will be the prospect of encountering unknown aliens. As you say, the stakes are high. If we choose incorrectly, much of our distinctiveness could be permanently obliterated.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 25 March 2013 11:07:43PM *  0 points [-]

sorry, in your terminology I should have said "reproductor"?, I forgot your substitute for replicator....

Comment author: timtyler 25 March 2013 11:34:55PM *  0 points [-]

Replicator, reproducor, I can cope either way. It seems to be mostly critics who get into a muddle over this issue - though of course, we should try not to confuse people with misleading terminology.