Perhaps this has been addressed before, but it is not present in the clippy faq: are you maximizing the average paper-clip density in the entire universe considering all of time, or the total number of paperclips ever, or the total measure of paper-clips (ie the total number of paperclips which have ever existed, times their average duration), or some other variation?
The distinction is usually not relevant in my day-to-day behavior so I normally don’t bother applying cognition to this question; however, the measure option sounds closest to my reflective equilibrium.
The biggest question: how do you deal with non-convergence? [...]
This problem is not unique to my species or value system, and it is a rather general problem that, on a sufficient level of generality and knowledge of fundamental reality, one’s values become ill-defined. My general method is to apply the previous-discussed CLIP heuristics (a protocol that combines language, epistemology, and meta-ethics).
I ask because although it seems reasonable that you would not transform metal into paperclips in a household which you went to trouble to set up for human “street cred,”
I would not do it until I had agreement with the resident humans at a later stage of reflective equilibrium, correct.
your claim of “long-term” interest in paperclips brings up the question of how you define such long-term interest. It is even possible that you will later regret any anti-paperclipping measures you put in place, and look for ways around them (as I’m sure you are aware).
The question does indeed become complicated and pose risk of decision paralysis. However, as for the matter at hand, it is a relatively simple problem of whether I should expensively tear out metal wiring upong moving into such a house. Among other problems with this approach:
1) If I deemed that optimal, humans would not deem it optimal to host me. 2) Tearing apart the encasing of this metal would prematurely entropise the resources—doing it at a later time, with more consent from humans, and more refined tools to apply to the problem, I could achieve a significantly higher clip ratio. 3) There exist, right now, other houses which I could so salvage but without jeopardizing trusted human sponsorship, making the salvaging of a LW host residence an extremely low priority even by that (weak) standard.
The distinction is usually not relevant in my day-to-day behavior so I normally don’t bother applying cognition to this question; however, the measure option sounds closest to my reflective equilibrium.
This problem is not unique to my species or value system, and it is a rather general problem that, on a sufficient level of generality and knowledge of fundamental reality, one’s values become ill-defined. My general method is to apply the previous-discussed CLIP heuristics (a protocol that combines language, epistemology, and meta-ethics).
I would not do it until I had agreement with the resident humans at a later stage of reflective equilibrium, correct.
The question does indeed become complicated and pose risk of decision paralysis. However, as for the matter at hand, it is a relatively simple problem of whether I should expensively tear out metal wiring upong moving into such a house. Among other problems with this approach:
1) If I deemed that optimal, humans would not deem it optimal to host me.
2) Tearing apart the encasing of this metal would prematurely entropise the resources—doing it at a later time, with more consent from humans, and more refined tools to apply to the problem, I could achieve a significantly higher clip ratio.
3) There exist, right now, other houses which I could so salvage but without jeopardizing trusted human sponsorship, making the salvaging of a LW host residence an extremely low priority even by that (weak) standard.
Or upon deciding to move out.
Same objections apply, plus LW community penalty.