Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: waveman 07 August 2016 01:28:40AM 0 points [-]

Objectification is a well-defined and experimentally verified to exist phenomenon by which women in western society at least judge themselves by the impression others have of their physical bodies...

You seem to be saying that objectification is something women do to themselves. Is this your intention?

Comment author: Philip_W 09 September 2016 05:50:35PM 0 points [-]

People don't have that amount of fine control over their own psychology. Depression isn't something people 'do to themselves' either, at least not with the common implications of that phrase.

Also, this was a minimal definition based on a quick search of relevant literature for demonstrated effects, as I intended to indicate with "at least". Effects of objectification in the perpetrator are harder to disentangle.

Comment author: CCC 09 November 2015 07:28:47AM 0 points [-]

Having a good factual model of a person would be necessary, and perhaps sufficient, for making that judgment favourably.

For a single person, yes, but it takes a significant investment of time to build an accurate, factual model of a single person. It becomes impractical to do so when making decisions that affect even a mere hundred people.

How would you recommend scaling this up for large groups?

Comment author: Philip_W 06 December 2015 06:05:35PM 0 points [-]

Sociology and psychology. Determine patterns in human desires and behaviour, and determine universal rules. Either that, or scale up your resources and get yourself an fAI.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 November 2015 03:56:16PM 9 points [-]

“Pharmaceutical happiness isn’t actual happiness, John. It just feels like it for a while.”

“And if I take aspirin for a headache, my lack of headache isn’t actual lack of headache. It just feels like it for a while. I don’t see the relevance.”

From "Beyond the curtain", fiction by Jeffrey Wells.

Comment author: Philip_W 05 November 2015 10:09:40AM 7 points [-]

'Happiness' is a vague term which refers to various prominent sensations and to a more general state, as vague and abstract as CEV (e.g. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"). 'Headache', on the other hand, primarily refers to the sensation.

If you take an aspirin for a headache, your head muscles don't stop clenching (or whatever else the cause is); it just feels like it for a while. A better pill would stop the clenching, and a better treatment still would make you aware of the physiological cause of the clenching and allow you to change it to your liking.

Comment author: CCC 27 October 2015 07:57:58AM 2 points [-]

But, from the inside, how to you tell the difference between doing actual good for others or being an omnipotent moral busybody?

Comment author: Philip_W 04 November 2015 06:47:04PM 1 point [-]

Having a good factual model of a person would be necessary, and perhaps sufficient, for making that judgment favourably. When moving beyond making people more equal and free in their means, the model should be significantly better than their self-model. After that, the analyst would probably value the thus observed people caring about self-determination in the territory (so no deceiving them to think they're self-determining), and act accordingly.

If people declare that analysing people well enough to know their moral values is itself being a busybody, it becomes harder. First I would note that using the internet without unusual data protection already means a (possibly begrudging) acceptance of such busybodies, up to a point. But in a more inconvenient world, consent or prevention of acute danger are as far as I would be willing to go in just a comment.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 November 2015 10:18:16PM 0 points [-]

rather than merely point out it's thirsty.

I'm not pointing out it's thirsty, I'm pointing out there is no water where it thinks to drink.

Comment author: Philip_W 04 November 2015 06:10:24PM *  -1 points [-]

In the analogy, water represents the point of the quote (possibly as applied to CEV). You're saying there is no point. I don't understand what you're trying to say in a way that is meaningful, but I won't bother asking because 'you can't do my thinking for me'.

Edit: fiiiine, what do you mean?

Comment author: dxu 01 November 2015 02:32:33AM *  3 points [-]

I think you overestimate the extent to which many LW users comment to help others understand things, as opposed to (say) gain social status at their expense.

Comment author: Philip_W 01 November 2015 09:54:25AM *  3 points [-]

Be careful when defining the winner as someone other than the one currently sitting on a mound of utility.

Most lesswrong users at least profess to want to be above social status games, so calling people out on it increases expected comment quality and personal social status/karma, at least a little.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 October 2015 02:39:46PM -1 points [-]

I think you entirely missed the point.

Comment author: Philip_W 27 October 2015 07:42:15AM 6 points [-]

I don't think that helps AndHisHorse figure out the point.

In response to comment by Philip_W on Polyhacking
Comment author: Alicorn 13 September 2015 04:12:55AM 6 points [-]

We got married almost a year ago :D. I can't keep track of who-all spouse is dating (it fluctuates a lot) but I have three other nodes on the Big Unruly Chart Thing, one of whom is also dating spouse. Going very smoothly :)

In response to comment by Alicorn on Polyhacking
Comment author: Philip_W 21 September 2015 08:31:31PM 0 points [-]


I might just have to go try it now.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 16 September 2015 05:09:20PM 0 points [-]

I meant, Zubon's description did not justify your claim that 'that isn't the procedure he chose'.

Comment author: Philip_W 21 September 2015 08:30:10PM 0 points [-]

'he' in that sentence ('that isn't the procedure he chose') still referred to Joe. Zubon's description doesn't justify the claim, it's a description of the consequence of the claim.

My original objection was that 'they' ("I think they would have given up on this branch already.") have a different procedure than Joe has ("all you have to do is do a brute force search of the space of all possible actions, and then pick the one with the consequences that you like the most."). Whomever 'they' refers to, you're expecting them to care about human suffering and be more careful than Joe is. Joe is a living counterexample to the notion that anyone with that kind of power would have given up on our branch already, since he explicitly throws caution to the wind and runs a brute force search of all Joe::future universes using infinite processing power, which would produce an endless array of rejection-worthy universes run at arbitrary levels of detail.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 11 September 2015 08:44:40PM 0 points [-]

Regardless of whether undoing would work, I presume that never-entered states would not have qualia associated with them.

Comment author: Philip_W 15 September 2015 03:26:08PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean with "never-entered" (or "entered") states? Ones Joe doesn't (does) declare real to live out? If so, the two probably correlate but Joe may be mistaken. A full simulation of our universe running on sufficient hardware would contain qualia, so the infinitely powerful process which gives Joe the knowledge which he uses to decide which universe is best may contain qualia as well, especially if the process is optimised for ability-to-make Joe-certain-of-his-decision rather than Joe's utility function.

View more: Next