And if I’m “best at” creating dissonance, hindering scientific research, or some other negatively-valued thing? If I should do the thing at which I’m most effective, regardless of how it fits my utility function...
I don’t know where that’s going. I don’t feel that’s a positive thing, but that’s inherent in the proposition that it doesn’t fit my utility function.
I guess I’m trying to say that “wasting my life” has a negative value with a lower absolute value than “persuading humanity to destroy itself”—though oratory is definitely not my best skill, so it’s not a perfect example.
Twiddling one’s waxed handlebar and creating interesting predicaments for heroes could be valuable. But, all else the same, I’d rather people who were extraordinarily ingenious and effective as being villains would just stay home in bed instead.
And if I’m “best at” creating dissonance, hindering scientific research, or some other negatively-valued thing? If I should do the thing at which I’m most effective, regardless of how it fits my utility function...
I don’t know where that’s going. I don’t feel that’s a positive thing, but that’s inherent in the proposition that it doesn’t fit my utility function.
I guess I’m trying to say that “wasting my life” has a negative value with a lower absolute value than “persuading humanity to destroy itself”—though oratory is definitely not my best skill, so it’s not a perfect example.
“Best at” may be considered to mean “creating most value for the given amount of effort”
As far as I’m concerned, if you are best at being an evil villain and only mediocre at being a superhero, be the villain.
[EDIT: why so negative? Do you people prefer mediocrity?]
Twiddling one’s waxed handlebar and creating interesting predicaments for heroes could be valuable. But, all else the same, I’d rather people who were extraordinarily ingenious and effective as being villains would just stay home in bed instead.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”