Re: Extrapolated volition: oops

From: Russell Wallace (
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 13:06:42 MST

On 11/10/05, Michael Wilson <> wrote:
> I know you've made serious proposals, which makes it even worse when
> you summarise them into a slogan. I would strongly suggest just saying
> 'my detailed proposal for what we should do can be found [here]', if
> you're not prepared to reiterate at least a one-page summary.

Fair enough, I'll do that if the occasion arises again.

I basically agree with Eliezer's SL4 comments on the /problems/ with
> this proposal, but I would not write it off as useless; some of the
> problems may actually be solvable, and it is conceivable that it
> could form an important component of a workable hybrid strategy.

Speaking of hybrid strategies, I'm starting to think DP and CEV may not be
as far apart as they appear at first glance. For the EV part, while I think
I'd want it toned down some from the way Eliezer seems to see it, _some_
form of intelligent interpretation of volition is needed to avoid the murder
by genie bottle problem; the real stumbling block is the C part. If an
escape clause were added - the right for people to say "I don't want
anything to do with path X that that lot are following, my volition is to go
down path Y instead" - then I'd have far fewer problems with it. (I know
Eliezer's afraid of letting people start adding preconditions - but slippery
slope arguments aren't always valid. If 100 Xs are bad, that doesn't always
mean the right number of Xs is 0.)

Join the club. My apologies if I keep boring you with truisms, they're
> intended more as a 'in case anyone on SL4 didn't already realise this'.

No problem, you're probably right that some things do need to be reiterated.

- Russell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT