Well, they’re anti-correlated across different agents. But from the same agent’s perspective, they may still be able to maximize their own red-seeing, or even human red-seeing—they just won’t. (This will be in the next part of my sequence on impact).
Well, they’re anti-correlated across different agents. But from the same agent’s perspective, they may still be able to maximize their own red-seeing, or even human red-seeing—they just won’t
Just making sure I can parse this… When I say that they’re anti-correlated, I mean that the policy of maximizing X is akin to the policy of minimizing X to the extent that X and not X will at some point compete for the same instrumental resources. I will agree with the statement that an agent maximizing X who possesses many instrumental resources can use them to accomplish not X (and ,in this sense, the agent doesn’t perceive X nd not X as anti-correlated); and I’ll also agree that an agent optimizing X and another optimizing not X will be competitive for instrumental resources and view those things as anti-correlated.
they may still be able to maximize their own red-seeing, or even human red-seeing—they just won’t
I think some of this is a matter of semantics but I think I agree with this. There are also two different definitions of the word able here:
Able #1 : The extent to which it is possible for an agent to achieve X across all possible universes we think we might reside in
Able #2 : The extent to which it is possble for an agent to achieve X in a counterfactual where the agent has a goal of achieving X
I think you’re using Able #2 (which makes sense—it’s how the word is used colloquially). I tend to use Able #1 (because I read a lot about determinism when I was younger). I might be wrong about this though because you made a similar distinction between physical capability and anticipated possibility like this in Gears of Impact:
People have a natural sense of what they “could” do. If you’re sad, it still feels like you “could” do a ton of work anyways. It doesn’t feel physically impossible.”
...
Imagine suddenly becoming not-sad. Now you “could” work when you’re sad, and you “could” work when you’re not-sad, so if AU just compared the things you “could” do, you wouldn’t feel impact here.
I think you’re using Able #2 (which makes sense—it’s how the word is used colloquially). I tend to use Able #1 (because I read a lot about determinism when I was younger). I might be wrong about this though because you made a similar distinction between physical capability and anticipated possibility like this in Gears of Impact:
I am using #2, but I’m aware that there’s a separate #1 meaning (and thank you for distinguishing between them so clearly, here!).
Well, they’re anti-correlated across different agents. But from the same agent’s perspective, they may still be able to maximize their own red-seeing, or even human red-seeing—they just won’t. (This will be in the next part of my sequence on impact).
Just making sure I can parse this… When I say that they’re anti-correlated, I mean that the policy of maximizing X is akin to the policy of minimizing X to the extent that X and not X will at some point compete for the same instrumental resources. I will agree with the statement that an agent maximizing X who possesses many instrumental resources can use them to accomplish not X (and ,in this sense, the agent doesn’t perceive X nd not X as anti-correlated); and I’ll also agree that an agent optimizing X and another optimizing not X will be competitive for instrumental resources and view those things as anti-correlated.
I think some of this is a matter of semantics but I think I agree with this. There are also two different definitions of the word able here:
Able #1 : The extent to which it is possible for an agent to achieve X across all possible universes we think we might reside in
Able #2 : The extent to which it is possble for an agent to achieve X in a counterfactual where the agent has a goal of achieving X
I think you’re using Able #2 (which makes sense—it’s how the word is used colloquially). I tend to use Able #1 (because I read a lot about determinism when I was younger). I might be wrong about this though because you made a similar distinction between physical capability and anticipated possibility like this in Gears of Impact:
I am using #2, but I’m aware that there’s a separate #1 meaning (and thank you for distinguishing between them so clearly, here!).