From: Vladimir Nesov (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 04:20:17 MDT
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Nick Tarleton <email@example.com> wrote:
> Start by asking yourself what you currently would want to change about
> your motivational system. Read moral philosophy, maybe.
> My point is that the goal system of an FAI is not arbitrary - it's
> tightly constrained by our current values and the values implicit in
> the changes we would make to ourselves, and can't be arbitrarily
> tinkered with to resolve paradoxes without serious thought.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
> "Thought" is cheap. You need a scientific process.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Real/important thought is rare. Pronouncements are not so rare. Please
> explain the sort of scientific process you have in mind.
This is exactly my complaint. "Writing moral philosophy" or "serious
thought" don't scale on more and more complex decisions that FAI must
face, and there is no process to increase their precision, it's too
easy to go in wrong direction. There should be some kind of simple
analysis that takes information about reality, i.e. human physiology
and culture, the way we behave and develop, and calculates benevolent
improvements. A kind of thing that CEV aspired to be.
-- Vladimir Nesov email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 22 2013 - 04:01:25 MDT