OK I’m downvoted so I must have missed something. Help guys?
Fronken
Karma: 131
Is that going to be harder that coming up with a mathematical expension of morality and preloading it?
Harder than saying it in English, that’s all.
EY. It’s his answer to friendliness.
No he wants to program the AI to deduce morality from us it is called CEV. He seems to be still working out how the heck to reduce that to math.
I would not dare to call that “Dark Arts”.
Fortunately someone else already invented the term “Dark Arts” and that’s what it means.
… seriously Eliezer?
Humans are made to do that by evolution AIs are not. So you have to figure what the heck evolution did, in ways specific enough to program into a computer.
Also, who mentioned giving AIs a priori knowledge of our preferences? It doesn’t seem to be in what you replied to.
… the what.
Ahh I just finished that.
… that is not rationality that is a mild infohazard trying to hack you into taking actions that make people starve. It should be kept away from people and counteragents spread to defend against further outbreaks. Seriously why would you post that as a rationality quote.
This comment, while pointing out real and serious issues—I agree with it—contains way too much Dark Arts for a LessWrong comment.
Possibly I was placing the zero point between positive and negative higher than you. I don’t see sadness as merely a low positive but a negative. But then I’m not using averages anyway, so I guess that may cover the difference between us.
But then you kill sad people to get “neutral happiness” …
Could one not change the bidding to use “chore points” of somesuch? I mean, the system described is designed for spouses, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be adapted for you and your housemates.
For “successful” read “accepted”. (Some are now accepted as historical facts.)
Considering timelessly, should it not also disprove helping the least happy, because they will always have been sad?
Presumably, only if they get born. Although that’s tweakable.
Not abstract, to be fair, usually …
But yes, even those without such skepticism (like myself) tend to notice that the quality is, in fact, low.
I think the empirical claims of feminism are now successful, but they did exist. Sexism, after all, has empirical claims.
But at the same time, the MRAs have a serious problem: in the same way that some people have extremely negative associations with feminism, many have similar issues with the MRAs. If someone were to want to seriously deal with gender inequality issues in custody disputes, I’d strongly advise them to keep themselves away from being associated with the MRAs.
I’m just wandering past your conversation, but I think many people are just offended by the concept of men demanding rights—y’know, because they have enough damn rights already, and so on.
That is, the very term “men’s rights” has negative connotations even without negative associations (and probably contributed to those associations, via bias.)
Feel free to point me in the direction of choice-positive feminist blogs, incidentally. My list has gone from six down to one over the past few years. Those six were the best I could find and five of them -still- couldn’t refrain from hostility, either towards women, or towards men.
No links in my pocket but I think I’ve encountered those. Maybe you were being to strict with the criteria? Few people could live up to that, I think.
But I also despise the position that women aren’t -allowed- to be like this
Nobody actively believes this, mind. They just haven’t thought about it.
I think that’s actually the common model that sex is something women have and men want. So, which of the two simply depends on whether you’re inclined to grant it or not, and on the side you view it from. This may be an unrelated phenomenon to dom/sub (or, alternately, the source of a dom/sub effect.)