Political questions like this are far removed from the kind of analysis you seem to want to apply. If it’s you taking out a killer yourself that’s one thing, but the question of whether to support it as a law is something entirely different. This rabbit hole goes very far indeed. Anyway, why would you care about the Constitution—you’re not one of the signers, are you? ;-)
I care about the Constitution for a couple of reasons beyond the narrowly patriotic:
(1) For the framers, its design posed a problem very similar to the design of Friendly AI. The newly independent British colonies were in a unique situation. On the one hand, whatever sort of nation they designed was likely to become quite powerful; it had good access to very large quantities of people, natural resources, and ideas, and the general culture of empiricism and liberty meant that the nation behaved as if it were much more intelligent than most of its competitors. On the other hand, the design they chose for the government that would steer that nation was likely to be quite permanent; it is one thing to change your system of government as you are breaking away from a distant and unpopular metropole, and another to change your government once that government is locally rooted and supported. The latter takes a lot more blood, and carries a much higher risk of simply descending into medium-term anarchy. Finally, the Founders knew that they could not see every possible obstacle that the young and unusual nation would encounter, and so they would have to create a system that could learn based on input from its environment without further input from its designers. So just as we have to figure out how to design a system that will usefully manage vast resources and intelligence in situations we cannot fully predict and with directions that, once issued, cannot be edited or recalled, so too did the Founding Fathers, and we should try to learn from their failures and successes.
(2) The Constitution has come to embody, however imperfectly, some of the core tenents of Bayesianism. I quote Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
Re 1, if that is the case why not support the Articles of Confederation instead? I also take exception to the underlying assumption that society needs top-down designing, but that’s a very deep debate.
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. … hat at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
If that was really the theory—“checks and balances”—the Constitution was a huge step backward from the Articles of Confederation. (I don’t support the AoC, but I’d prefer them to the Constitution.)
Re 1, if that is the case why not support the Articles of Confederation instead?
I never said we should support it; I said we should care about it.
It would be silly to claim that anyone interested in FAI should be pro-Constitution; there were plenty of 18th century people who earnestly grappled with their version of the FAI problem and thought the Constitution was a bad idea. If you agree more with the anti-Federalists, fine! The point is that we should closely follow the results of the experiment, not that we should bark agreement with the particular set of hypotheses chosen by the Founding Fathers for extensive testing.
Very good point, and the founders’ process for developing the constitution and bill of rights is important for thinking about how to develop a Friendly (mostly Friendly?) AI.
Anyway, why would you care about the Constitution—you’re not one of the signers, are you? ;-)
I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of employment, so at the very least I have to signal caring about it. I doubt beriukay is in the same position, though.
Oaths in general can be a form of precommitment and a weak signal that someone ascribes to certain moral or legal values, though no one seemed to take it seriously in this instance. On my first day, it was just another piece of paper in with all the other forms they wanted me to sign, and they took it away right after a perfunctory reading. I had to search it out online to remember just what it was I had sworn to do. Later, I learned some people didn’t even remember they had taken it.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
For example, in middle school, one of my teachers didn’t like me whispering to the person sitting next to me in class. When she asked what I was doing, I told her that I was explaining the lesson, since she did a poor job of it. She asked me if I would like to be suspended for disrespect; I made sure to let her know that the form did not have ‘disrespect’ as a reason for suspension, only detention.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
Far out. That is important.
As for your story, it’s something I would have done but I hope you understand that a little tact could have gone a long way.
What I was trying to get at you seem to think also. You think you are sending a ‘weak signal’ that you are committed to something. But you are using words that I think many around here would be suspicious of (e.g. oath and sworn).
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn’t trust that assertion, how will they ever trust ‘no really I’m serious’.
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn’t trust that assertion, how will they ever trust ‘no really I’m serious’.
Perhaps through enforcement. There are a significant number of laws, regulations, and directives that cover US Federal employees, and the oath I linked to above is a signed and sworn statement indicating the fact that I am aware of and accept responsibility for them.
She asked me if I would like to be suspended for disrespect; I made sure to let her know that the form did not have ‘disrespect’ as a reason for suspension, only detention.
You prefer more time locked up in school than less?
My explanation: It is ironic that ‘more time at school after it finishes’ is used as a punishment and yet ‘days off school’ is considered a worse punishment.
Given the chance I would go back in time and explain to my younger self that just because something is presented as a punishment or ‘worse punishment’ doesn’t mean you have to prefer to avoid it. Further, I would explain that getting what he wants does not always require following the rules presented to him. He can make his own rules, chose among preferred consequences.
While I never actually got either a detention or a suspension, I would have to say I’d prefer the suspension.
In theory but I wonder how long it has been since you were in school. In GA they got around to making a rule that if you were suspended you would lose your drivers license. Also, suspensions typically imply a 0 on all assignments (and possibly tests) that were due for its duration.
My explanation: It is ironic that ‘more time at school after it finishes’ is used as a punishment and yet ‘days off school’ is considered a worse punishment.
Given the chance I would go back in time and explain to my younger self that just because something is presented as a punishment or ‘worse punishment’ doesn’t mean you have to prefer to avoid it. Further, I would explain that getting what he wants does not always require following the rules presented to him. He can make his own rules, chose among preferred consequences.
While I never actually got either a detention or a suspension, I would have to say I’d prefer the suspension.
Hailing from secular Britain I wasn’t aware of the distinction. Affirmation actually sounds more religious to me. I’d never particularly associated the idea of an oath with religion but I can see how such an association could sour one on the word ‘oath’.
Well obviously the idea of an oath only has value if it is credible, that is why there are often strong cultural taboos against oath breaking. In times past there were often harsh punishments for oath breaking to provide additional enforcement but it is true that in the modern world much of the function of oaths has been transferred to the legal system. Traditionally one of the things that defined a profession was the expectation that members of the profession held themselves to a standard above and beyond the minimum enforced by law however. Professional oaths are part of that tradition, as is the idea of an oath sworn by civil servants and other government employees. This general concept is not unique to the US or to government workers.
Political questions like this are far removed from the kind of analysis you seem to want to apply. If it’s you taking out a killer yourself that’s one thing, but the question of whether to support it as a law is something entirely different. This rabbit hole goes very far indeed. Anyway, why would you care about the Constitution—you’re not one of the signers, are you? ;-)
I care about the Constitution for a couple of reasons beyond the narrowly patriotic:
(1) For the framers, its design posed a problem very similar to the design of Friendly AI. The newly independent British colonies were in a unique situation. On the one hand, whatever sort of nation they designed was likely to become quite powerful; it had good access to very large quantities of people, natural resources, and ideas, and the general culture of empiricism and liberty meant that the nation behaved as if it were much more intelligent than most of its competitors. On the other hand, the design they chose for the government that would steer that nation was likely to be quite permanent; it is one thing to change your system of government as you are breaking away from a distant and unpopular metropole, and another to change your government once that government is locally rooted and supported. The latter takes a lot more blood, and carries a much higher risk of simply descending into medium-term anarchy. Finally, the Founders knew that they could not see every possible obstacle that the young and unusual nation would encounter, and so they would have to create a system that could learn based on input from its environment without further input from its designers. So just as we have to figure out how to design a system that will usefully manage vast resources and intelligence in situations we cannot fully predict and with directions that, once issued, cannot be edited or recalled, so too did the Founding Fathers, and we should try to learn from their failures and successes.
(2) The Constitution has come to embody, however imperfectly, some of the core tenents of Bayesianism. I quote Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Re 1, if that is the case why not support the Articles of Confederation instead? I also take exception to the underlying assumption that society needs top-down designing, but that’s a very deep debate.
If that was really the theory—“checks and balances”—the Constitution was a huge step backward from the Articles of Confederation. (I don’t support the AoC, but I’d prefer them to the Constitution.)
I never said we should support it; I said we should care about it.
It would be silly to claim that anyone interested in FAI should be pro-Constitution; there were plenty of 18th century people who earnestly grappled with their version of the FAI problem and thought the Constitution was a bad idea. If you agree more with the anti-Federalists, fine! The point is that we should closely follow the results of the experiment, not that we should bark agreement with the particular set of hypotheses chosen by the Founding Fathers for extensive testing.
Very good point, and the founders’ process for developing the constitution and bill of rights is important for thinking about how to develop a Friendly (mostly Friendly?) AI.
I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of employment, so at the very least I have to signal caring about it. I doubt beriukay is in the same position, though.
Do you really take that sort of thing seriously? Far out if you do, but I have trouble with the concept of an ‘oath’.
Oaths in general can be a form of precommitment and a weak signal that someone ascribes to certain moral or legal values, though no one seemed to take it seriously in this instance. On my first day, it was just another piece of paper in with all the other forms they wanted me to sign, and they took it away right after a perfunctory reading. I had to search it out online to remember just what it was I had sworn to do. Later, I learned some people didn’t even remember they had taken it.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
For example, in middle school, one of my teachers didn’t like me whispering to the person sitting next to me in class. When she asked what I was doing, I told her that I was explaining the lesson, since she did a poor job of it. She asked me if I would like to be suspended for disrespect; I made sure to let her know that the form did not have ‘disrespect’ as a reason for suspension, only detention.
Far out. That is important.
As for your story, it’s something I would have done but I hope you understand that a little tact could have gone a long way.
What I was trying to get at you seem to think also. You think you are sending a ‘weak signal’ that you are committed to something. But you are using words that I think many around here would be suspicious of (e.g. oath and sworn).
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn’t trust that assertion, how will they ever trust ‘no really I’m serious’.
Perhaps through enforcement. There are a significant number of laws, regulations, and directives that cover US Federal employees, and the oath I linked to above is a signed and sworn statement indicating the fact that I am aware of and accept responsibility for them.
You prefer more time locked up in school than less?
No.
My explanation: It is ironic that ‘more time at school after it finishes’ is used as a punishment and yet ‘days off school’ is considered a worse punishment.
Given the chance I would go back in time and explain to my younger self that just because something is presented as a punishment or ‘worse punishment’ doesn’t mean you have to prefer to avoid it. Further, I would explain that getting what he wants does not always require following the rules presented to him. He can make his own rules, chose among preferred consequences.
While I never actually got either a detention or a suspension, I would have to say I’d prefer the suspension.
In theory but I wonder how long it has been since you were in school. In GA they got around to making a rule that if you were suspended you would lose your drivers license. Also, suspensions typically imply a 0 on all assignments (and possibly tests) that were due for its duration.
As a teacher or a student? 4 years and respectively.
My explanation: It is ironic that ‘more time at school after it finishes’ is used as a punishment and yet ‘days off school’ is considered a worse punishment.
Given the chance I would go back in time and explain to my younger self that just because something is presented as a punishment or ‘worse punishment’ doesn’t mean you have to prefer to avoid it. Further, I would explain that getting what he wants does not always require following the rules presented to him. He can make his own rules, chose among preferred consequences.
While I never actually got either a detention or a suspension, I would have to say I’d prefer the suspension.
I have a martyr complex.
How so?
An oath is an appeal to a sacred witness, typically the God of Abraham. An affirmation is the secular version of an oath in the American legal system.
Hailing from secular Britain I wasn’t aware of the distinction. Affirmation actually sounds more religious to me. I’d never particularly associated the idea of an oath with religion but I can see how such an association could sour one on the word ‘oath’.
Yeah I like Kevin’s short answer. But in general I said to Rain:
When you make something a contract you see there are some legal teeth, but swearing to uphold the constitution feels silly.
Well obviously the idea of an oath only has value if it is credible, that is why there are often strong cultural taboos against oath breaking. In times past there were often harsh punishments for oath breaking to provide additional enforcement but it is true that in the modern world much of the function of oaths has been transferred to the legal system. Traditionally one of the things that defined a profession was the expectation that members of the profession held themselves to a standard above and beyond the minimum enforced by law however. Professional oaths are part of that tradition, as is the idea of an oath sworn by civil servants and other government employees. This general concept is not unique to the US or to government workers.