The whole point of CEV is that it goes as many levels meta as necessary! And the other whole point of CEV is that it is better at coming up with strategies than you are.
Please explain either one of your claims. For the first, show me where something Eliezer has written indicates CEV has some notion of how meta it is going, or how meta it “should” go, or anything at all relating to your claim. The second appears to merely be a claim that CEV is effective, so its use in any argument can only be presuming your conclusion.
In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted.
My emphasis. Or to paraphrase, “as meta as we require.”
The whole point of CEV is that it goes as many levels meta as necessary! And the other whole point of CEV is that it is better at coming up with strategies than you are.
Please explain either one of your claims. For the first, show me where something Eliezer has written indicates CEV has some notion of how meta it is going, or how meta it “should” go, or anything at all relating to your claim. The second appears to merely be a claim that CEV is effective, so its use in any argument can only be presuming your conclusion.
My emphasis. Or to paraphrase, “as meta as we require.”
Writing “I define my algorithm for problem X to be that algorithm which solves problem X” is unhelpful. Quoting said definition, doubly so.
In any case, the passage you quote says nothing about how meta to go. There’s nothing meta in that entire passage.