The question is if humans, unlike paperclip maximizer’s, are actually more concerned with maximizing their reward number irregardless of how it is being increased.
If there is a way for humans to assign utility non-arbitrarily, then we are able to apply rational choice to our values, i.e. look for values that are better at yielding utility. If humans measure utility in a unit of bodily sensations, then we can ask what would most effectively yield the greatest amount of bodily sensations. Here wireheading seems to be more efficient than any other way to maximize bodily sensations, i.e. utility.
There even is some evidence for this, e.g. humans enjoy fiction. Humans treat their model of reality as part of reality. If you can change the model, you can change reality.
I don’t agree with all that though, because I think that humans either are not utility maximizer’s or assign utility arbitrarily.
It seems to me that I value both my internal world and the external world. I enjoy fiction, but the prospect of spending the rest of my life with nothing else fails to thrill me.
A lot of people express scepticism of this claim, usually acting as if there is a great burden of proof required to show the external part is even possible. My point is that the external part is both possible and unsurprising.
So my argument against wire heading goes; I don’t feel like I want to be a wirehead, the vast majority of minds in general don’t want to become wireheads, low prior + no evidence = “why has this even been promoted to my attention?”
The question is if humans, unlike paperclip maximizer’s, are actually more concerned with maximizing their reward number irregardless of how it is being increased.
If there is a way for humans to assign utility non-arbitrarily, then we are able to apply rational choice to our values, i.e. look for values that are better at yielding utility. If humans measure utility in a unit of bodily sensations, then we can ask what would most effectively yield the greatest amount of bodily sensations. Here wireheading seems to be more efficient than any other way to maximize bodily sensations, i.e. utility.
There even is some evidence for this, e.g. humans enjoy fiction. Humans treat their model of reality as part of reality. If you can change the model, you can change reality.
I don’t agree with all that though, because I think that humans either are not utility maximizer’s or assign utility arbitrarily.
It seems to me that I value both my internal world and the external world. I enjoy fiction, but the prospect of spending the rest of my life with nothing else fails to thrill me.
A lot of people express scepticism of this claim, usually acting as if there is a great burden of proof required to show the external part is even possible. My point is that the external part is both possible and unsurprising.
So my argument against wire heading goes; I don’t feel like I want to be a wirehead, the vast majority of minds in general don’t want to become wireheads, low prior + no evidence = “why has this even been promoted to my attention?”