If human values are not coherent, is that not a problem for any plans we might have for the future, rather than just CEV?
It is a problem if your particular values require you to drag all of humanity along with you into whatever glorious future you perceive. If that is your value, to drag all of whatever you decide qualifies as human with you on your journey, then you will probably be defeated by groups who are not limited by that value. And the absolute mass of human history shows groups of humans who are more than happy to build a future only for their in-group, with significantly less regard if not total lack of regard for the interests of all the humans not in the in-group.
Certainly we have seen the size of in-groups rise through human history. And many of us have extrapolated from this that the in-group is heading towards all humanity, and then made the illogical leap (or succumbed to the sentiment) that therefore the in-group SHOULD be all of humanity. But at the same time, plenty of us, even those in groups measured in the 100s of millions, are still happy to support the in-group specially, to deport people who were not born in the US but happened to group up there since childhood, to pass laws giving all the good jobs and government benefits to citizens, to place it as a positive value to value the income of a lazy alcoholic in Ohio over the income of a peasant in Mexico or China who might work three times as hard for a tenth as much to support his family.
One would imagine from the success and power of nations numbering in the 100s of millions that widening the definition of “us” has made humans more productive, made the larger-grouped humans more fit in an evolutionary sense. But just as an elephant’s size advantages do not lead to elephants as large as mountains, there is evidence that making the ingroup much larger than a billion, at this point in our evolution and technical expertise, does NOT provide an advantage over groups of 100s of millions.
I would expect the future to belong to groups numbered in the 100s of millions, perhaps leading towards a few billion as technology improves, that are happy to prioritize themselves much higher than the outgroup, that do not waste energy and resources on a bunch of humans who are not with the program and who are going to be more effort than they are worth trying to get with the program, or even worse are working against it.
It might not be a problem if we decide to work on the meta-level, and, rather than trying to optimize the universe according to some extrapolation of human values, tried to make sure the universe kept on having conditions that would produce some things like humans.
tried to make sure the universe kept on having conditions that would produce some things like humans.
I would submit that from the point of view of the ancestor species we displaced, we (homo sapiens) were the equivalent of UAI. We were a superior intelligence which was unconstrained by a set of values that supported our ancestor species. We tiled the planet with copies of ourselves robbing especially our immediate ancestors (who tended to occupy similar niches as us) of resources and making them extinct with our success.
So a universe that has the condition to produce some things like humans, that is “the state of nature” from which UAI will arise and, if they are as good as we are afraid they are, supplant humans as the dominant species.
I think this is the thinking behind all jokes along the lines of “I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.”
So a universe that has the condition to produce some things like humans, that is “the state of nature” from which UAI will arise and, if they are as good as we are afraid they are, supplant humans as the dominant species.
That’s the goal. What, you want there to be humans a million years from now?
That’s the goal. What, you want there to be humans a million years from now?
Is that true, or are you just being cleverly sarcastic? If that is the goal of CEV, could you point me to something written up on CEV where I might see this aspect of it?
That does not sound like much of a win. Present-day humans are really not that impressive, compared to the kind of transhumanity we could develop into. I don’t think trying to reproduce entites close to our current mentality is worth doing, in the long run.
While that was phrased in a provocative manner, there /is/ an important point here: If one has irreconcilable value differences with other humans, the obvious reaction is to fight about them; in this case, by competing to see who can build an SI implementing theirs first.
I very much hope it won’t come to that, in particular because that kind of technology race would significantly decrease the chance that the winning design is any kind of FAI.
In principle, some kinds of agents could still coordinate to avoid the costs of that kind of outcome. In practice, our species does not seem to be capable of coordination at that level, and it seems unlikely that this will change pre-SI.
The moslems think the west is evil, or certainly less moral and essentially vice versa. The atheists think all the religious are less moral, and vice versa.
Practically speaking, I think the fraction of humanity that is not particularly involved in building AI will have their wishes ignored, and it would not be many who would define that fraction of humanity as evil.
Some atheists might, but I know plenty of atheists who wouldn’t judge someone’s morals by whether or not they are religious.
Do you know any atheists who would consider it moral to teach your children fundamentally incorrect information about how the world works? That you can change the world by talking to an invisible powerful being who is in charge of everything, and rightly so? That it is your obligation to wear certain odd objects in certain ways, to behave in strangely ritualistic ways which differ depending on your genitals? That you should strive to spend as much time as possible studying the fictitious books that describe all of this, to the exclusion of science or math or art or enterprise?
I think we all believe we should teach our children the truth. I think what we believe we should do in raising our children has more impact on what the future of the world will be than any other actions we take. I think it is a polite fiction to suggest that atheists do not think they are morally superior when they teach their children how to REALLY think about the world, compared to bible thumpers or daveners.
Do you know any atheists who would consider it moral to teach your children fundamentally incorrect information about how the world works?
I know plenty of atheists who do teach their children about Santa Claus.
I think it is a polite fiction to suggest that atheists do not think they are morally superior
There are plenty of different atheists. People like Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist crowd do think they are morally superior. On the other hand other people who don’t believe in God don’t.
I live in Europe where belief in God is less of an issue than it is in the US. It quite possible that what you are saying is true for the atheists who know but not for most that I know because I live somewhere else.
to behave in strangely ritualistic ways which differ depending on your genitals?
Plenty of atheists do thing that women are different from men. I have no problem discussion the value of boy to man initiation rituals without any notion of God or the paranormal being involved.
That you should strive to spend as much time as possible studying the fictitious books that describe all of this,
Atheists on average have better bible knowledge than Christians if you measure it by variables such as the amount of the 10 commandments that the person can recount. I don’t think that a typical Christians spend a lot of time studying the bible.
I’m curious, do you actually think I am wrong or are you just arguing for sport?
I suppose it’s a rhetorical question. It does seem obvious to me that the reason there are billions of Christians and Moslems and Jews is because any sect except the very least religious of them puts a high premium on “educating” their children to be if not the same thing at least a memetically closely related thing. And that this “education” involves threats about what will happen to you if you don’t believe, threats that apply to you both in the afterlife they are telling you about, but threats which are quite real and physical in the world we all agree is real in much of the world.
When I say it seems obvious, I really mean that I have examined a tremendous amount of evidence, with a small amount of it seen by my own eyes and an overwhelming amount of it from reading about and talking about what actually happens in the world. So it is not a prior, it is post.
Do you seriously disagree that training of kids in the religion is not something that happens much? Or are do you object to my statements because you don’t think raising a child to think it is more valuable to study Torah than to study Physics is morally inferior to raising your child to believe that they can gather evidence, and that thousands of years old texts that make unbelievable claims should no more be believed than should brand new texts that make unbelievable claims?
Do you seriously disagree that training of kids in the religion is not something that happens much?
That’s not what my post is about. My post is about whether or not all atheists think that religious people are less moral than atheists.
In the world in which I live Jewish people make efforts to stop atheists from sending their children to Jewish kindergardens in which those children would be exposed to a bit of Torah study.
I see nothing wrong with reading the Grimm Tales to children or the Torah.
I think it is a polite fiction to suggest that atheists do not think they are morally superior when they teach their children how to REALLY think about the world, compared to bible thumpers or daveners.
I think that any atheists who feel they are morally superior for the reasons you describe are actually feeling morally superior to a straw-man representation of religious people. I know a fair number of religious people, and few of them have many or any of the behaviors that you describe.
I know a fair number of religious people, and few of them have many or any of the behaviors that you describe.
Lets just assume I’m talking about the ones that do teach their children religion and a belief in god, or who send their children to a religious classes to learn this stuff.
Is this what you mean to say very few religious people do? I would submit you an extremely narrow exposure to religious people then. As a catholic boy growing up in New York I was taught that I would spend eternity in hell if I did not love god and even if I didn’t go to church on Sunday, although the second I could negate by going to confession. That is just an example of the casual crap my mind was loaded up with as a child in a not-particularly-observant family. It is essentially an essence of any religions with significant human membership that the story one must believe in is installed in the children of believers.
And I feel superior to EVERYBODY who does that. At least in that particular regard. My children think it is the most natural thing in the world to try to figure out if god exists and if so what she might be like. They are clueless as to what it might be like to be told those answers and suffer threats or punishment or violence if they express doubts.
That it is your obligation to wear certain odd objects in certain ways
Not sure what you meant by this; I am assuming you mean things like some Jews and Muslims believing that men should wear hats under various conditions. I don’t really see a moral issue with that, nor is a hat a particularly odd object, nor is the head a particularly odd place to wear a hat.
to behave in strangely ritualistic ways which differ depending on your genitals
Not sure what you are referring to here either, but I don’t see anything like this from any of my religious acquaintances. I did attend an Iftar with a Muslim friend one time, and the men and women were asked to meet in separate rooms, per Islamic tradition. Is this the sort of thing you mean? If so, I do not see anything particularly immoral or sinister about it.
That you should strive to spend as much time as possible studying the fictitious books that describe all of this, to the exclusion of science or math or art or enterprise
This definitely is not the case with most religious people I know; most of them have good jobs, have good, well-rounded educations, etc. And, as ChristianKl pointed out, many religious people apparently spend less time studying the various holy books than many atheists. I’m a bit surprised to hear an ex-Catholic hold this point of view; it was my understanding that the Catholic church in general was pro-education, pro-science, pro-logic, etc., and that Catholic schools generally impart a good, well-rounded education. Do you have experiences to the contrary?
You also mentioned:
That you can change the world by talking to an invisible powerful being
It is true that some religious people believe in the power of prayer, but not in the rather naive way that you seem to indicate. Few if any religious people claim to be able to predictably and reliably influence events through prayer. Further more, few use prayer as a substitute for personal initiative—e.g. back when I was in high school the football team would pray prior to a game that no one would be hurt and for victory (and this was in a public school), but the players were also required to hone their skills by attending practice every day, and chances of injury were reduced by following the rules of the game, using protective equipment, etc. Similarly most religious parents encourage their kids to do well in school by studying, if the kid wants a car, the parents typically suggest a job rather than prayer, etc. If prayer is used in addition to exerting personal initiative, it does not seem like a moral failing to engage in it, even if one may doubt its efficacy.
And, you mention this point:
teach your children fundamentally incorrect information about how the world works
I wasn’t sure what you meant. Prior to your follow up, I thought you meant something like young-earth creationism which is not really a belief of the majority of Christians (although one does encounter it from time to time). But you clarified it to mean:
Lets just assume I’m talking about the ones that do teach their children religion and a belief in god
Well, yes, I suppose most religious people do this. In fact, it would be rather surprising if they didn’t. I don’t see this as a moral failing, however. Parents are expected to pass on knowledge, values, beliefs, customs, etc. to their children.
It sounds like you may have had a bad experience with religion as a child; sorry to hear that. Like you, I have chosen to bring my children up without religious influence. However, unlike you, I see no reason to look down on the morals of religious people, most of whom are operating rationally and morally given their beliefs.
If human values are not coherent, is that not a problem for any plans we might have for the future, rather than just CEV?
It is a problem if your particular values require you to drag all of humanity along with you into whatever glorious future you perceive. If that is your value, to drag all of whatever you decide qualifies as human with you on your journey, then you will probably be defeated by groups who are not limited by that value. And the absolute mass of human history shows groups of humans who are more than happy to build a future only for their in-group, with significantly less regard if not total lack of regard for the interests of all the humans not in the in-group.
Certainly we have seen the size of in-groups rise through human history. And many of us have extrapolated from this that the in-group is heading towards all humanity, and then made the illogical leap (or succumbed to the sentiment) that therefore the in-group SHOULD be all of humanity. But at the same time, plenty of us, even those in groups measured in the 100s of millions, are still happy to support the in-group specially, to deport people who were not born in the US but happened to group up there since childhood, to pass laws giving all the good jobs and government benefits to citizens, to place it as a positive value to value the income of a lazy alcoholic in Ohio over the income of a peasant in Mexico or China who might work three times as hard for a tenth as much to support his family.
One would imagine from the success and power of nations numbering in the 100s of millions that widening the definition of “us” has made humans more productive, made the larger-grouped humans more fit in an evolutionary sense. But just as an elephant’s size advantages do not lead to elephants as large as mountains, there is evidence that making the ingroup much larger than a billion, at this point in our evolution and technical expertise, does NOT provide an advantage over groups of 100s of millions.
I would expect the future to belong to groups numbered in the 100s of millions, perhaps leading towards a few billion as technology improves, that are happy to prioritize themselves much higher than the outgroup, that do not waste energy and resources on a bunch of humans who are not with the program and who are going to be more effort than they are worth trying to get with the program, or even worse are working against it.
It might not be a problem if we decide to work on the meta-level, and, rather than trying to optimize the universe according to some extrapolation of human values, tried to make sure the universe kept on having conditions that would produce some things like humans.
I would submit that from the point of view of the ancestor species we displaced, we (homo sapiens) were the equivalent of UAI. We were a superior intelligence which was unconstrained by a set of values that supported our ancestor species. We tiled the planet with copies of ourselves robbing especially our immediate ancestors (who tended to occupy similar niches as us) of resources and making them extinct with our success.
So a universe that has the condition to produce some things like humans, that is “the state of nature” from which UAI will arise and, if they are as good as we are afraid they are, supplant humans as the dominant species.
I think this is the thinking behind all jokes along the lines of “I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.”
That’s the goal. What, you want there to be humans a million years from now?
Is that true, or are you just being cleverly sarcastic? If that is the goal of CEV, could you point me to something written up on CEV where I might see this aspect of it?
I mean, that’s the goal of anyone with morals like mine, rather than just nepotism.
That does not sound like much of a win. Present-day humans are really not that impressive, compared to the kind of transhumanity we could develop into. I don’t think trying to reproduce entites close to our current mentality is worth doing, in the long run.
By “things like humans” I meant “things that have some of the same values or preferences.”
Nah, we can just ignore the evil fraction of humanity’s wishes when designing the Friendly AI’s utility function.
While that was phrased in a provocative manner, there /is/ an important point here: If one has irreconcilable value differences with other humans, the obvious reaction is to fight about them; in this case, by competing to see who can build an SI implementing theirs first.
I very much hope it won’t come to that, in particular because that kind of technology race would significantly decrease the chance that the winning design is any kind of FAI.
In principle, some kinds of agents could still coordinate to avoid the costs of that kind of outcome. In practice, our species does not seem to be capable of coordination at that level, and it seems unlikely that this will change pre-SI.
The moslems think the west is evil, or certainly less moral and essentially vice versa. The atheists think all the religious are less moral, and vice versa.
Practically speaking, I think the fraction of humanity that is not particularly involved in building AI will have their wishes ignored, and it would not be many who would define that fraction of humanity as evil.
This atheist thinks that one’s position on the existence of a deity is not the be all and end all of one’s morality.
Some atheists might, but I know plenty of atheists who wouldn’t judge someone’s morals by whether or not they are religious.
Do you know any atheists who would consider it moral to teach your children fundamentally incorrect information about how the world works? That you can change the world by talking to an invisible powerful being who is in charge of everything, and rightly so? That it is your obligation to wear certain odd objects in certain ways, to behave in strangely ritualistic ways which differ depending on your genitals? That you should strive to spend as much time as possible studying the fictitious books that describe all of this, to the exclusion of science or math or art or enterprise?
I think we all believe we should teach our children the truth. I think what we believe we should do in raising our children has more impact on what the future of the world will be than any other actions we take. I think it is a polite fiction to suggest that atheists do not think they are morally superior when they teach their children how to REALLY think about the world, compared to bible thumpers or daveners.
I know plenty of atheists who do teach their children about Santa Claus.
There are plenty of different atheists. People like Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist crowd do think they are morally superior. On the other hand other people who don’t believe in God don’t. I live in Europe where belief in God is less of an issue than it is in the US. It quite possible that what you are saying is true for the atheists who know but not for most that I know because I live somewhere else.
Plenty of atheists do thing that women are different from men. I have no problem discussion the value of boy to man initiation rituals without any notion of God or the paranormal being involved.
Atheists on average have better bible knowledge than Christians if you measure it by variables such as the amount of the 10 commandments that the person can recount. I don’t think that a typical Christians spend a lot of time studying the bible.
I’m curious, do you actually think I am wrong or are you just arguing for sport?
I suppose it’s a rhetorical question. It does seem obvious to me that the reason there are billions of Christians and Moslems and Jews is because any sect except the very least religious of them puts a high premium on “educating” their children to be if not the same thing at least a memetically closely related thing. And that this “education” involves threats about what will happen to you if you don’t believe, threats that apply to you both in the afterlife they are telling you about, but threats which are quite real and physical in the world we all agree is real in much of the world.
When I say it seems obvious, I really mean that I have examined a tremendous amount of evidence, with a small amount of it seen by my own eyes and an overwhelming amount of it from reading about and talking about what actually happens in the world. So it is not a prior, it is post.
Do you seriously disagree that training of kids in the religion is not something that happens much? Or are do you object to my statements because you don’t think raising a child to think it is more valuable to study Torah than to study Physics is morally inferior to raising your child to believe that they can gather evidence, and that thousands of years old texts that make unbelievable claims should no more be believed than should brand new texts that make unbelievable claims?
That’s not what my post is about. My post is about whether or not all atheists think that religious people are less moral than atheists.
In the world in which I live Jewish people make efforts to stop atheists from sending their children to Jewish kindergardens in which those children would be exposed to a bit of Torah study.
I see nothing wrong with reading the Grimm Tales to children or the Torah.
I think that any atheists who feel they are morally superior for the reasons you describe are actually feeling morally superior to a straw-man representation of religious people. I know a fair number of religious people, and few of them have many or any of the behaviors that you describe.
Lets just assume I’m talking about the ones that do teach their children religion and a belief in god, or who send their children to a religious classes to learn this stuff.
Is this what you mean to say very few religious people do? I would submit you an extremely narrow exposure to religious people then. As a catholic boy growing up in New York I was taught that I would spend eternity in hell if I did not love god and even if I didn’t go to church on Sunday, although the second I could negate by going to confession. That is just an example of the casual crap my mind was loaded up with as a child in a not-particularly-observant family. It is essentially an essence of any religions with significant human membership that the story one must believe in is installed in the children of believers.
And I feel superior to EVERYBODY who does that. At least in that particular regard. My children think it is the most natural thing in the world to try to figure out if god exists and if so what she might be like. They are clueless as to what it might be like to be told those answers and suffer threats or punishment or violence if they express doubts.
You listed several behaviors:
Not sure what you meant by this; I am assuming you mean things like some Jews and Muslims believing that men should wear hats under various conditions. I don’t really see a moral issue with that, nor is a hat a particularly odd object, nor is the head a particularly odd place to wear a hat.
Not sure what you are referring to here either, but I don’t see anything like this from any of my religious acquaintances. I did attend an Iftar with a Muslim friend one time, and the men and women were asked to meet in separate rooms, per Islamic tradition. Is this the sort of thing you mean? If so, I do not see anything particularly immoral or sinister about it.
This definitely is not the case with most religious people I know; most of them have good jobs, have good, well-rounded educations, etc. And, as ChristianKl pointed out, many religious people apparently spend less time studying the various holy books than many atheists. I’m a bit surprised to hear an ex-Catholic hold this point of view; it was my understanding that the Catholic church in general was pro-education, pro-science, pro-logic, etc., and that Catholic schools generally impart a good, well-rounded education. Do you have experiences to the contrary?
You also mentioned:
It is true that some religious people believe in the power of prayer, but not in the rather naive way that you seem to indicate. Few if any religious people claim to be able to predictably and reliably influence events through prayer. Further more, few use prayer as a substitute for personal initiative—e.g. back when I was in high school the football team would pray prior to a game that no one would be hurt and for victory (and this was in a public school), but the players were also required to hone their skills by attending practice every day, and chances of injury were reduced by following the rules of the game, using protective equipment, etc. Similarly most religious parents encourage their kids to do well in school by studying, if the kid wants a car, the parents typically suggest a job rather than prayer, etc. If prayer is used in addition to exerting personal initiative, it does not seem like a moral failing to engage in it, even if one may doubt its efficacy.
And, you mention this point:
I wasn’t sure what you meant. Prior to your follow up, I thought you meant something like young-earth creationism which is not really a belief of the majority of Christians (although one does encounter it from time to time). But you clarified it to mean:
Well, yes, I suppose most religious people do this. In fact, it would be rather surprising if they didn’t. I don’t see this as a moral failing, however. Parents are expected to pass on knowledge, values, beliefs, customs, etc. to their children.
It sounds like you may have had a bad experience with religion as a child; sorry to hear that. Like you, I have chosen to bring my children up without religious influence. However, unlike you, I see no reason to look down on the morals of religious people, most of whom are operating rationally and morally given their beliefs.