'Necessity of Physical Representation' refers to the notion that ultimately, a proper theory of value must compile to physics. We are made from physical stuff, and everything we interact with and value is made from the same physical stuff, and so ethics ultimately is about how to move & arrange the physical stuff in our light-cone. If a theory of value does not operate at this level, it can't be a final theory of value. See e.g., Tegmark's argument here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813
Ideally we shouldn't have pages like this. It means that the hierarchy feature failed. Is this just meant to be temporary? Or do you foresee this as a permanent page?
I definitely think something like this should exist and will be helpful, but I think Arbital should be able to generate something like this automatically. Until it can, we are stuck doing it manually.
Expanding all children in the Children tab on the AI alignment page achieves something similar, but not quite as clean.
I think one will often still need 'introductory' or 'tutorial' type pages that walk through the hierarchy as English text, but this exact page was something I whipped up during the recent Experimental Research Retreat as an alternative to just dumping the info and because I thought I might start filling it in as Arbital pages.
Within the "Value Theory" section, I'd propose two subpoints:
Unity of Value Thesis
Necessity of Physical Representation
The 'Unity of Value Thesis' is simply what we get if the Complexity of Value Thesis is wrong. And it could be wrong- we just don't know. For what this could look like, see e.g. https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/11/19/the-tyranny-of-the-intentional-object/
'Necessity of Physical Representation' refers to the notion that ultimately, a proper theory of value must compile to physics. We are made from physical stuff, and everything we interact with and value is made from the same physical stuff, and so ethics ultimately is about how to move & arrange the physical stuff in our light-cone. If a theory of value does not operate at this level, it can't be a final theory of value. See e.g., Tegmark's argument here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813
Ideally we shouldn't have pages like this. It means that the hierarchy feature failed. Is this just meant to be temporary? Or do you foresee this as a permanent page?
I definitely think something like this should exist and will be helpful, but I think Arbital should be able to generate something like this automatically. Until it can, we are stuck doing it manually.
Expanding all children in the Children tab on the AI alignment page achieves something similar, but not quite as clean.
I'm finding this page helpful. Alexei, does your theory think I shouldn't be?
I think one will often still need 'introductory' or 'tutorial' type pages that walk through the hierarchy as English text, but this exact page was something I whipped up during the recent Experimental Research Retreat as an alternative to just dumping the info and because I thought I might start filling it in as Arbital pages.