Nobody wants to be the one who dies that others may live, yet some people have made that decision.
Was that a good decision (not a rhetorical question)? Who judges? I understand that aggregated preference of humanity has a neutral point of view, and so in any given situation prefers lives of 5 given normal people to life of 1 given normal person. But is there any good reason to be interested in this valuation in making your own decisions?
Note that having preference for your own life over lives of others could still lead to decisions similar to those you’d expect from a neutral-point-of-view preference. Through logical correlation of decisions made by different people, your decision to follow a given principle makes other people follow it in similar situations, which might benefit you enough for the causal effect of (say) losing your own life to be overweighted by that acausal effect of having your life saved counterfactually. This would be exactly the case where one personally prefers to die so that others may live (so that others could’ve died so that you could’ve lived). It’s not all about preference, even perfectly selfish agents would choose to self-sacrifice, given some assumptions.
That was a normative, not descriptive note. If all people acted according to a better decision theory, their actions would (presumably—I still don’t have good understanding of this) look like having a neutral point of view, despite their preferences remaining self-centered. Of course, if we have most people act as they actually do, then any given person won’t have enough acausal control over others.
Fair enough. The only small note I’d like to add is that the phrase “if all people acted according to a [sufficiently] better decision theory” does not seem to quite convey how distant from reality—or just realism—such a proposition is. It’s less in the ballpark of “if everyone had IQ 230″ than in that of “if everyone uploaded and then took the time to thoroughly grok and rewrite their own code”.
I don’t think that’s true, as people can be as simple (in given situations) as they wish to be, thus allowing others to model them, if that’s desirable. If you are precommited to choosing option A no matter what, it doesn’t matter that you have a brain with hundred billion neurons, you can be modeled as easily as a constant answer.
You cannot precommit “no matter what” in real life. If you are an agent at all—if your variable appears in the problem—that means you can renege on your precommitment, even if it means a terrible punishment. (But usually the punishment stays on the same order of magnitude as the importance of the choice, allowing the choice to be non-obvious—possibly the rulemaker’s tribute to human scope insensitivity. Not that this condition is even that necessary since people also fail to realise the most predictable and immediate consequences of their actions on a regular basis. “X sounded like a good idea at the time”, even if X is carjacking a bulldozer.)
Was that a good decision (not a rhetorical question)? Who judges? I understand that aggregated preference of humanity has a neutral point of view, and so in any given situation prefers lives of 5 given normal people to life of 1 given normal person. But is there any good reason to be interested in this valuation in making your own decisions?
Note that having preference for your own life over lives of others could still lead to decisions similar to those you’d expect from a neutral-point-of-view preference. Through logical correlation of decisions made by different people, your decision to follow a given principle makes other people follow it in similar situations, which might benefit you enough for the causal effect of (say) losing your own life to be overweighted by that acausal effect of having your life saved counterfactually. This would be exactly the case where one personally prefers to die so that others may live (so that others could’ve died so that you could’ve lived). It’s not all about preference, even perfectly selfish agents would choose to self-sacrifice, given some assumptions.
Acausal relationships between human agents are astronomically overestimated on LW.
That was a normative, not descriptive note. If all people acted according to a better decision theory, their actions would (presumably—I still don’t have good understanding of this) look like having a neutral point of view, despite their preferences remaining self-centered. Of course, if we have most people act as they actually do, then any given person won’t have enough acausal control over others.
Fair enough. The only small note I’d like to add is that the phrase “if all people acted according to a [sufficiently] better decision theory” does not seem to quite convey how distant from reality—or just realism—such a proposition is. It’s less in the ballpark of “if everyone had IQ 230″ than in that of “if everyone uploaded and then took the time to thoroughly grok and rewrite their own code”.
I don’t think that’s true, as people can be as simple (in given situations) as they wish to be, thus allowing others to model them, if that’s desirable. If you are precommited to choosing option A no matter what, it doesn’t matter that you have a brain with hundred billion neurons, you can be modeled as easily as a constant answer.
You cannot precommit “no matter what” in real life. If you are an agent at all—if your variable appears in the problem—that means you can renege on your precommitment, even if it means a terrible punishment. (But usually the punishment stays on the same order of magnitude as the importance of the choice, allowing the choice to be non-obvious—possibly the rulemaker’s tribute to human scope insensitivity. Not that this condition is even that necessary since people also fail to realise the most predictable and immediate consequences of their actions on a regular basis. “X sounded like a good idea at the time”, even if X is carjacking a bulldozer.)
This is not a problem of IQ.