= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Armok_GoB comments on Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous - LessWrong
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 (428)
Yes, I object less to CEV if you go one or two levels meta. But if evolution of values is your core value, you find that it's pretty hard to do better than to just not interfere except to keep the ecosystem from collapsing. See John Holland's book and its theorems showing that an evolutionary algorithm as described does optimal search.
CEV goes infinite levels meta, that's what the "extrapolated" part means.
Countably infinite levels or uncountably infinite levels? ;)
Countably I think, since computing power is presumably finite so the infinity argument relies on the series being convergent.
No, that isn't what the "extrapolated" part means. The "extrapolated" part means closure and consistency over inference. This says nothing at all about the level of abstraction used for setting goals.