From: Stefan Pernar (stefan.pernar@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 23:22:46 MDT
On Oct 31, 2007 12:11 PM, Norman Noman <overturnedchair@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Thomas McCabe <pphysics141@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > CEV is a metamorality system. It doesn't say XYZ is good or bad: it
> > defines a procedure for how to determine if XYZ is good or bad. Apples
> > and oranges.
> >
>
> If we were smart enough to work CEV out in our own heads, it'd be plain to
> see that it's just another system of ethics. "Here we have a nihilist, a
> kantian, a negative utilitarian, a coherent extrapolated volitionist, and a
> guy who follows the ten commandments."
>
> But we're not smart enough to figure out what CEV will result in, which I
> guess is the whole point, isn't it? If we knew what it was, there would be a
> lot of people who wouldn't like it. A smokescreen is the only way we can
> pretend there's a solution that satisfies everyone.
>
Very good observation, Norman. I generally agree but believe that it is
possible to figure out what CEV will result in. Namely the implicit plan of
evolution to increase fitness. For details on what I mean by that I suggest
reading my paper on AI friendliness theory that you will find at
http://www.jame5.com/?p=8
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that CEV's opacity is a bad, bad thing?
>
No ;-)
-- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT