DanArmak comments on Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous - LessWrong

11 Post author: PhilGoetz 18 May 2012 12:48AM

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

Comments (428)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 18 May 2012 03:13:45PM 7 points [-]

CEV is supposed to preserve those things that people value, and would continue to value were they more intelligent and better informed. I value the lives of my friends. Many other people value the death of people like my friends. There is no reason to think that this is because they are less intelligent or less well-informed than me, as opposed to actually having different preferences. TimS claimed that in a situation like that, CEV would do nothing, rather than impose the extrapolated will of the majority.

My claim is that there is nothing -- not one single thing -- which would be a value held by every person in the world, even were they more intelligent and better informed. An intelligent, informed psychopath has utterly different values from mine, and will continue to have utterly different values upon reflection. The CEV therefore either has to impose the majority preferences upon the minority, or do nothing at all.

Comment author: DanArmak 19 May 2012 04:14:17PM 1 point [-]

TimS claimed that in a situation like that, CEV would do nothing, rather than impose the extrapolated will of the majority.

I agree with you in general, and want to further point out that there is no such thing as "doing nothing". If doing nothing tends to allow your friends to continue living (because they have the power to defend themselves in the status quo), that is favoring their values. If doing nothing tends to allow your friends to be killed (because they are a powerless, persecuted minority in the status quo) that is favoring the other people's values.