According to the utility function that your current utility function doesn’t like, but that you will be delighted with once you try it out.
That description could apply to an overwhelming majority of the possible self-consistent utility functions (which are, last I checked, infinite in number), including all of those which lead to wireheading. Please be more specific.
Utility function #311289755230920891423. Try it. You’ll like it.
I have no solution to wireheading. I think a little wireheading might even be necessary. Maybe “wireheading” is a necessary component of “consciousness”, or “value”. Maybe all of the good places lie on a continuum between “wireheading” and “emotionless nihilism”.
Fallacy of moderation. Besides, wireheading and self-destructive nihilism aren’t opposite extremes on a spectrum, they’re just failure states within the solution space of possible value systems.
#311289755230920891423.
A string of random numbers is not an explanation.
I have a simple solution to wireheading… simple for me, anyway. I don’t like it, so I won’t seek it out, nor modify myself in any way that might reasonably cause me to like it or want to seek it out.
The fallacy of moderation is only a fallacy when someone posits that two things that are on a continuum, that aren’t actually on a continuum. (If they are on a continuum, it’s only a fallacy if you have independent means for finding a correct answer to the problem that the arguing groups have made errors on, rather than simply combining their utility functions.) The question I’m raising is whether wireheading is in fact just an endpoint on the same continuum that our favored states lie.
How do you define wireheading?
I define it as valuing your qualia instead of valuing states of the world. But could something that didn’t value its qualia be conscious? Could it have any fun? Would we like to be it? Isn’t valuing your qualia part of the definition of what a qualia is?
That description could apply to an overwhelming majority of the possible self-consistent utility functions (which are, last I checked, infinite in number), including all of those which lead to wireheading. Please be more specific.
Utility function #311289755230920891423. Try it. You’ll like it.
I have no solution to wireheading. I think a little wireheading might even be necessary. Maybe “wireheading” is a necessary component of “consciousness”, or “value”. Maybe all of the good places lie on a continuum between “wireheading” and “emotionless nihilism”.
Fallacy of moderation. Besides, wireheading and self-destructive nihilism aren’t opposite extremes on a spectrum, they’re just failure states within the solution space of possible value systems.
A string of random numbers is not an explanation.
I have a simple solution to wireheading… simple for me, anyway. I don’t like it, so I won’t seek it out, nor modify myself in any way that might reasonably cause me to like it or want to seek it out.
The fallacy of moderation is only a fallacy when someone posits that two things that are on a continuum, that aren’t actually on a continuum. (If they are on a continuum, it’s only a fallacy if you have independent means for finding a correct answer to the problem that the arguing groups have made errors on, rather than simply combining their utility functions.) The question I’m raising is whether wireheading is in fact just an endpoint on the same continuum that our favored states lie.
How do you define wireheading?
I define it as valuing your qualia instead of valuing states of the world. But could something that didn’t value its qualia be conscious? Could it have any fun? Would we like to be it? Isn’t valuing your qualia part of the definition of what a qualia is?