Indeed the orthogonality thesis in that practical sense is not what this essay is about, as I explain in the first paragraph and concede in the last paragraph. This article addresses the assumed orthogonality between ethics and intelligence, particularly general superintelligence, based on considerations from meta-ethics and personal identity, and argues for convergence.
There seems to be surprisingly little argumentation in favor of this convergence, what is utterly surprising to me, given how clear and straightforward I take it to be, though requiring an understanding of meta-ethics and of personal identity which is rare. Eliezer has, at least in the past, stated that he had doubts regarding both philosophical topics, while I claim to understand them very well. These doubts should merit an examination of the matter I’m presenting.
There seems to be surprisingly little argumentation in favor of this convergence
It appears here from time to time. It tends to be considered a trivial error. (This is unlikely to change.)
I suppose it is unlikely to change, but the level of agreement is completely unreflective of any superior understanding or insight. What is rejected, over and over, is a straw-man version of ethical objectivism. And while lesswrongers are informed by their leaders that academic philosophy is dangerous mind-rot, that is unlikely to change.
There seems to be surprisingly little argumentation in favor of this convergence, what is utterly surprising to me, given how clear and straightforward I take it to be
I’ve read this one which makes it clear why NUCA is irrelevant: the people who belive in UCA are taking univeral to mean “all rational minds” not ” all minds”.
Indeed the orthogonality thesis in that practical sense is not what this essay is about, as I explain in the first paragraph and concede in the last paragraph. This article addresses the assumed orthogonality between ethics and intelligence, particularly general superintelligence, based on considerations from meta-ethics and personal identity, and argues for convergence.
There seems to be surprisingly little argumentation in favor of this convergence, what is utterly surprising to me, given how clear and straightforward I take it to be, though requiring an understanding of meta-ethics and of personal identity which is rare. Eliezer has, at least in the past, stated that he had doubts regarding both philosophical topics, while I claim to understand them very well. These doubts should merit an examination of the matter I’m presenting.
It appears here from time to time. It tends to be considered a trivial error. (This is unlikely to change.)
I suppose it is unlikely to change, but the level of agreement is completely unreflective of any superior understanding or insight. What is rejected, over and over, is a straw-man version of ethical objectivism. And while lesswrongers are informed by their leaders that academic philosophy is dangerous mind-rot, that is unlikely to change.
An error often feels like a clear and straightforward solution from the inside. Have you read the posts surrounding No Universally Compelling Arguments?
I’ve read this one which makes it clear why NUCA is irrelevant: the people who belive in UCA are taking univeral to mean “all rational minds” not ” all minds”.