= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gurkenglas comments on Open thread, Jul. 04 - Jul. 10, 2016 - 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 (80)
Why not? If you haven't yet decided what your goals are, being able to meet many goals is useful.
The AGI argument is that its goals might not be aligned with ours, are you saying that we should make sure that our future self's goals be aligned with our current goals?
For example, if I know I am prone to hyperbolic discounting, I should take power from my future self so it will act according to my wishes rather than its own?
Being able to meet many goals is useful. Actually meeting wrong goals is not.
Your hyperbolic discounting example is instructive, as without a model of your goals, you cannot know whether your current or future self is correct. Most people come to the opposite conclusion - a hyperbolic discount massively overweights the short-term in a way that causes regret.
I meant that - when planning for the future, I want my future self to care about each absolute point in time as much as my current self does, or barring that, to only be able to act as if it did, hence the removal of power.
The correct goal is my current goal, obviously. After all, it's my goal. My future self may disagree, prefering its own current goal. Correct is a two-place word.
If I let my current goal be decided by my future self, but I don't know yet what it will decide, then I should accomodate as many of its possible choices as possible.