I don’t think “individual CEV” is proper. It’s like calling an ATM an “ATM organism”, which would be even worse than calling it an “ATM machine”, as is common. The “C” means individual extrapolated volitions are combined coherently.
I agree it would in theory be better to have a singleton. But that requires knowing how to cohere extrapolated volitions. My idea is that it might be possible to push off that task to superintelligences without destroying the world in the process.
I don’t think “individual CEV” is proper. It’s like calling an ATM an “ATM organism”, which would be even worse than calling it an “ATM machine”, as is common. The “C” means individual extrapolated volitions are combined coherently.
While it would be useful to be able to split the ‘combine from different agents wishes’ part from the ‘act as if the agents smarter and wiser’ part as it is currently described the ‘C’ is still necessary even for an individual. Because most organisms including, most importantly, humans do not have coherent value systems as they stand. So as it stands we need to say things like CEV and CEV for the label to make sense. The core of the problem here is that there are three important elements of the process that we are trying to represent with just two letters of the acronym.
Make smarter, wiser and generally more betterer (intended emphasis on the informality needed for this level of terseness)
Make internally coherent
Combine with others
Those three don’t neatly separate into ‘C’ and ‘E’.
Spread describes cases where your extrapolated volition becomes unpredictable, intractable, or random. You might predictably want a banana tomorrow, or predictably not want a banana tomorrow, or predictably have a 30% chance of wanting a banana tomorrow depending on variables that are quantum-random, deterministic but unknown, or computationally intractable. When multiple outcomes are possible and probable, this creates spread in your extrapolated volition.
Muddle measures self-contradiction, inconsistency, and cases of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. Suppose that if you got a banana tomorrow you would not want a banana, and if you didn’t get a banana you would indignantly complain that you wanted a banana. This is muddle.
Distance measures how difficult it would be to explain your volition to your current self, and the degree to which the volition was extrapolated by firm steps.
Short distance: An extrapolated volition that you would readily agree with if explained.
Medium distance: An extrapolated volition that would require extended education and argument before it became massively obvious in retrospect.
Long distance: An extrapolated volition your present-day self finds incomprehensible; not outrageous or annoying, but blankly incomprehensible.
Ground zero: Your actual decision.
...
Coherence: Strong agreement between many extrapolated individual volitions which are un-muddled and un-spread in the domain of agreement, and not countered by strong disagreement.
Coherence:
Increases, as more humans actively agree.
Decreases, as more humans actively disagree. (The strength of opposition decreases if the opposition is muddled.)
Increases, as individuals support their wishes more, with stronger emotions or more settled philosophy.
It should be easier to counter coherence than to create coherence.
I don’t think “individual CEV” is proper. It’s like calling an ATM an “ATM organism”, which would be even worse than calling it an “ATM machine”, as is common. The “C” means individual extrapolated volitions are combined coherently.
I agree it would in theory be better to have a singleton. But that requires knowing how to cohere extrapolated volitions. My idea is that it might be possible to push off that task to superintelligences without destroying the world in the process.
While it would be useful to be able to split the ‘combine from different agents wishes’ part from the ‘act as if the agents smarter and wiser’ part as it is currently described the ‘C’ is still necessary even for an individual. Because most organisms including, most importantly, humans do not have coherent value systems as they stand. So as it stands we need to say things like CEV and CEV for the label to make sense. The core of the problem here is that there are three important elements of the process that we are trying to represent with just two letters of the acronym.
Make smarter, wiser and generally more betterer (intended emphasis on the informality needed for this level of terseness)
Make internally coherent
Combine with others
Those three don’t neatly separate into ‘C’ and ‘E’.
From http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html, I added some emphasis to explain why I understand it the way I do.
So coherence is something done after un-muddling.