I’ve received minus 2 points (that’s bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating… I suppose I’m just repeating the above points on lexicographic preferences.
Any answer to the question involves making value choices about the relative harms associated with torture and specks, I can’t see how there’s an “obvious” answer at all, unless one is arrogant enough to assume their value choices are universal and beyond challenge.
Unless you add facts and assumptions not stated, the question compares torture x 50 years to 1 dust speck in an infinite number people’s eyes, one time. Am I missing something? Because it seems It can’t be answered without reference to value choices—which to anyone who doesn’t share those values will naturally appear irrational.
“I’ve received minus 2 points (that’s bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating… ”
I think this is mainly because your comment seemed uninformed by the relevant background but was presented with a condescending and negative tone. Comments with both these characteristics tend to get downvoted, but if you cut back on one or the other you should get better responses.
“It seems that many, including Yudkowsky, answer this question by making the most basic mistake, i.e. by cheating—assuming facts not in evidence.”
Comments with both these characteristics tend to get downvoted, but if you cut back on one or the other you should get better responses.
I’d just like to note that comments informed by the relevant background but condescending and negative are often voted down as well. Though Annoyance seems to have relatively high karma anyway.
I don’t think that case is crystal-clear, could you explain this a bit more?
Looking at DS3618′s comments, he (I estimate gender based on writing style and the demographics of this forum and of the CMU PhD program he claims to have entered) had some good (although obvious) points regarding peer-review and Flare. Those comments were upvoted.
The comments that were downvoted seem to have been very negative and low in informed content.
He claimed that calling intelligent design creationism “creationism” was “wrong” because ID is logically separable from young earth creationism and incorporates the idea of ‘irreducible complexity.’ However, arguments from design, including forms of ‘irreducible complexity’ argument, have been creationist standbys for centuries. Rudely chewing someone out for not defining creationism in a particular narrow fashion, the fashion advanced by the Discovery Institute as part of an organized campaign to evade court rulings, does deserve downvoting. Suggesting that the Discovery Institute, including Behe, isn’t a Christian front group is also pretty indefensible given the public info on it (e.g. the “wedge strategy” and numerous similar statements by DI members to Christian audiences that they are a two-faced organization).
This comment implicitly demanded that no one note limitations of the brain without first building AGI, and was lacking in content.
DS3618 also claims to have a stratospheric IQ, but makes numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Perhaps he is not a native English speaker, but this does shift probability mass to the hypothesis that he is a troll or sock puppet.
He says that he entered the CMU PhD program without a bachelor’s degree based on industry experience. This is possible, as CMU’s PhD program has no formal admissions requirements according to its document. However, given base rates, and the context of the claim, it is suspiciously convenient and shifts further probability mass towards the troll hypothesis. I suppose one could go through the CMU Computer Science PhD student directory to find someone without a B.S. and with his stated work background to confirm his identity (only reporting whether there is such a person, not making the anonymous DS3618′s identity public without his consent).
There isn’t for agents in general, but most humans will in fact trade off probabilities of big bads (death, torture, etc) against minor harms, and so preferring SPECKS indicates a seeming incoherency of values.
I’ve received minus 2 points (that’s bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating… I suppose I’m just repeating the above points on lexicographic preferences.
Any answer to the question involves making value choices about the relative harms associated with torture and specks, I can’t see how there’s an “obvious” answer at all, unless one is arrogant enough to assume their value choices are universal and beyond challenge.
Unless you add facts and assumptions not stated, the question compares torture x 50 years to 1 dust speck in an infinite number people’s eyes, one time. Am I missing something? Because it seems It can’t be answered without reference to value choices—which to anyone who doesn’t share those values will naturally appear irrational.
“I’ve received minus 2 points (that’s bad I guess?) with no replies, which is very illuminating… ”
I think this is mainly because your comment seemed uninformed by the relevant background but was presented with a condescending and negative tone. Comments with both these characteristics tend to get downvoted, but if you cut back on one or the other you should get better responses.
“It seems that many, including Yudkowsky, answer this question by making the most basic mistake, i.e. by cheating—assuming facts not in evidence.”
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_world/
“Any answer to the question involves making value choices”
Yes it does.
“compares torture x 50 years to 1 dust speck in an infinite number people’s eyes”
3^^^3 is a (very large) finite number.
“It can’t be answered without reference to value choices—which to anyone who doesn’t share those values will naturally appear irrational.”
Moral anti-realists don’t have to view differences in values as reflecting irrationality.
I’d just like to note that comments informed by the relevant background but condescending and negative are often voted down as well. Though Annoyance seems to have relatively high karma anyway.
I agree. See DS3618 for a crystal-clear example.
I don’t think that case is crystal-clear, could you explain this a bit more?
Looking at DS3618′s comments, he (I estimate gender based on writing style and the demographics of this forum and of the CMU PhD program he claims to have entered) had some good (although obvious) points regarding peer-review and Flare. Those comments were upvoted.
The comments that were downvoted seem to have been very negative and low in informed content.
He claimed that calling intelligent design creationism “creationism” was “wrong” because ID is logically separable from young earth creationism and incorporates the idea of ‘irreducible complexity.’ However, arguments from design, including forms of ‘irreducible complexity’ argument, have been creationist standbys for centuries. Rudely chewing someone out for not defining creationism in a particular narrow fashion, the fashion advanced by the Discovery Institute as part of an organized campaign to evade court rulings, does deserve downvoting. Suggesting that the Discovery Institute, including Behe, isn’t a Christian front group is also pretty indefensible given the public info on it (e.g. the “wedge strategy” and numerous similar statements by DI members to Christian audiences that they are a two-faced organization).
This comment implicitly demanded that no one note limitations of the brain without first building AGI, and was lacking in content.
DS3618 also claims to have a stratospheric IQ, but makes numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Perhaps he is not a native English speaker, but this does shift probability mass to the hypothesis that he is a troll or sock puppet.
He says that he entered the CMU PhD program without a bachelor’s degree based on industry experience. This is possible, as CMU’s PhD program has no formal admissions requirements according to its document. However, given base rates, and the context of the claim, it is suspiciously convenient and shifts further probability mass towards the troll hypothesis. I suppose one could go through the CMU Computer Science PhD student directory to find someone without a B.S. and with his stated work background to confirm his identity (only reporting whether there is such a person, not making the anonymous DS3618′s identity public without his consent).
I strongly doubt that person counts as “informed by the relevant background”.
I considered that, which is why I said that the responses would be “better.”
Fair enough, apologies for the tone.
But if answering the question involves making arbitrary value choices I don’t understand how there can possibly be an obvious answer.
There isn’t for agents in general, but most humans will in fact trade off probabilities of big bads (death, torture, etc) against minor harms, and so preferring SPECKS indicates a seeming incoherency of values.
Thanks for the patient explanation.