= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Selfish preferences and self-modification - 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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (24)
Hm, this points out to me that I could have made this post more stand-alone. The idea was that you eat the candy and experience a non-transferrable reward. But let me give an example of what I mean by selfish preferences.
If someone made a copy of me and said they could either take me hang-gliding, or take my copy, I'd prefer that I go hang-gliding. Selfishly :P
Assuming we substitute something I actually want to do for hang-gliding...
("Not the most fun way to lose 1/116,000th of my measure, thanks!" say both copies, in stereo)
...and that I don't specifically want to avoid non-shared experiences, which I probably do...
("Why would we want to diverge faster, anyway?" say the copies, raising simultaneous eyebrows at Manfred)
...that's what coinflips are for!
(I take your point about non-transferability, but I claim that B-me would press the button even if it was impossible to share the profits.)
I think that's a totally okay preference structure to have (or to prefer with metapreferences or whatever).
Delicious reinforcement! Thank you, friend.
I'd throw dice and select based on outcome. Thereby everybody of both me's get half a hang-glide (on average).
But then I guess I'd work together with clones of myself well to. Quite well. Better than with most other people. Not everybody I know would. Some claimed they couldn't live together with another instance of themselves.