Scott Garrabrant just convinced me that my notion of conservatism was conflating two things:
Obligations to (slash constraints imposed by) the interests of existing agents.
The assumption that large agents would grow in a bottom-up way (e.g. by merging smaller agents) rather than in a top-down way (e.g. by spinning up new subagents).
Scott Garrabrant just convinced me that my notion of conservatism was conflating two things:
Obligations to (slash constraints imposed by) the interests of existing agents.
The assumption that large agents would grow in a bottom-up way (e.g. by merging smaller agents) rather than in a top-down way (e.g. by spinning up new subagents).
I mainly intend conservatism to mean the former.