NancyLebovitz 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 10:31:52PM 3 points [-]

What if particular arrangements of flowers, trees and soforth are complex and interconnected, in ways that can be undone to the net detriment of said flowers, trees and soforth? Thinking here of attempts at scientifically "managing" forest resources in Germany with the goal of making them as accessible and productive as possible. The resulting tree farms were far less resistant to disease, climatic abberation, and so on, and generally not very healthy, because it turns out that illegible, sloppy factor that made forest seem less-conveniently organized for human uses was a non-negligible portion of what allowed them to be so productive and robust in the first place.

No individual tree or flower is all that important, but the arrangement is, and you can easily destroy it without necessarily destroying any particular tree or flower. I'm not sure what to call this, and it's definitely not independent of the trees and flowers and soforth, but it can be destroyed to the concrete and demonstrable detriment of what's left.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 20 May 2012 07:32:53AM 1 point [-]

That's something like my objection to CEV-- I currently believe that some fraction of important knowledge is gained by blundering around and (or?) that the universe is very much more complex than any possible theory about it.

This means that you can't fully know what your improved (by what standard?) self is going to be like.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 May 2012 05:14:07AM -1 points [-]

It's the difference between the algorithm and its output, and the local particulars of portions of that output.