All of Jay95's Comments + Replies

Jay9510

I don't think there's a physical difference between morality being arbitrary because it is the evolution of blind selfish memes, or morality being limited by practical considerations. If someone had a hypothetical objective morality they could still be a slave-owner and war-monger in one age and a civil-rights activist calling for world peace in a different age.

Jay9520

Dumb question: In the omnicide outcome agi continues its existence, but whether it's sentient or not no one else from earth does. In the undignified survival outcome agi continues its existence and potentially so do many humans for functionally ever and those human may have lives better than death (even barely). Why is parochial value-alignment necessarily worse than no alignment at all?

1Simulation_Brain
I think there's a possibility that their lives, or some of them, are vastly worse than death. See the recent post the case against value alignment for some pretty convincing concerns.
1Thane Ruthenis
"Undignified survival" likely also involves many people/entities whose lives are worse than death. E. g., being eternally tortured because they committed some crime that the parochial values consider unforgivable, or because these entities aren't recognized as morally relevant by the parochial values and are therefore exploited for work/entertainment.
Jay9510

An "ontological crisis" is treated well enough when you note your perception as a belief. If it's literally impossible to not have a best working model of reality in its entirety that undermines profound doubt.

2Alex Flint
But then are you saying that it's impossible to experience profound doubt? Or are you saying that it's possible to experience profound doubt, but noting perception as belief is a reliable way out of it? If the latter then how do you go from noting perception as belief to making decisions?