Comment author: CarlShulman 14 September 2009 12:52:57AM 2 points [-]

There isn't for agents in general, but most humans will in fact trade off probabilities of big bads (death, torture, etc) against minor harms, and so preferring SPECKS indicates a seeming incoherency of values.

Comment author: R_Nebblesworth 14 September 2009 12:57:31AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for the patient explanation.

Comment author: CarlShulman 14 September 2009 12:39:00AM 7 points [-]

"I've received minus 2 points (that's bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating... "

I think this is mainly because your comment seemed uninformed by the relevant background but was presented with a condescending and negative tone. Comments with both these characteristics tend to get downvoted, but if you cut back on one or the other you should get better responses.

"It seems that many, including Yudkowsky, answer this question by making the most basic mistake, i.e. by cheating - assuming facts not in evidence."

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_world/

"Any answer to the question involves making value choices"

Yes it does.

"compares torture x 50 years to 1 dust speck in an infinite number people's eyes"

3^^^3 is a (very large) finite number.

"It can't be answered without reference to value choices - which to anyone who doesn't share those values will naturally appear irrational."

Moral anti-realists don't have to view differences in values as reflecting irrationality.

Comment author: R_Nebblesworth 14 September 2009 12:46:28AM 1 point [-]

Fair enough, apologies for the tone.

But if answering the question involves making arbitrary value choices I don't understand how there can possibly be an obvious answer.

Comment author: R_Nebblesworth 13 September 2009 05:34:52AM 0 points [-]

It seems that many, including Yudkowsky, answer this question by making the most basic mistake, i.e. by cheating - assuming facts not in evidence.

We don't know anything about (1) the side-effects of picking SPECKS (such as car crashes); and definitely don't know that (2) the torture victim can "acclimate". (2) in particular seems like cheating in a big way - especially given the statement "without hope or rest".

There's nothing rational about posing a hypothetical and then adding in additional facts in your answer. However, that's a great way to avoid the question presented.

Comment author: R_Nebblesworth 14 September 2009 12:14:54AM 0 points [-]

I've received minus 2 points (that's bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating... I suppose I'm just repeating the above points on lexicographic preferences.

Any answer to the question involves making value choices about the relative harms associated with torture and specks, I can't see how there's an "obvious" answer at all, unless one is arrogant enough to assume their value choices are universal and beyond challenge.

Unless you add facts and assumptions not stated, the question compares torture x 50 years to 1 dust speck in an infinite number people's eyes, one time. Am I missing something? Because it seems It can't be answered without reference to value choices - which to anyone who doesn't share those values will naturally appear irrational.

Comment author: R_Nebblesworth 13 September 2009 05:34:52AM 0 points [-]

It seems that many, including Yudkowsky, answer this question by making the most basic mistake, i.e. by cheating - assuming facts not in evidence.

We don't know anything about (1) the side-effects of picking SPECKS (such as car crashes); and definitely don't know that (2) the torture victim can "acclimate". (2) in particular seems like cheating in a big way - especially given the statement "without hope or rest".

There's nothing rational about posing a hypothetical and then adding in additional facts in your answer. However, that's a great way to avoid the question presented.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit