momothefiddler

Karma: 46

momothefiddler 12 May 2012 6:38 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dorikka’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
I can’t figure out an answer to any of those questions without having a way to decide which utility function is better. This seems to be a problem, because I don’t see how it’s even possible.

momothefiddler 11 May 2012 14:09 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dorikka’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
But why does it matter what they think about it for the short time before it happens, compared to the enjoyment of it long after?

So you positively value “eating ice cream” and negatively value “having eaten ice cream”—I can relate. What if the change, instead of making you dislike ice cream and like veggies, made you dislike fitness and enjoy sugar crashes? The only real difference I can see is that the first increases your expected lifespan and so increases the overall utility. They both resolve the conflict and make you happy, though, so aren’t they both better than what you have now?

I guess you’re right. It’s the difference between “what I expect” and “what I want”.

momothefiddler 8 May 2012 15:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: FeepingCreature’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
As far as I can tell, the only things that keep me from reducing myself to a utilon-busybeaver are a) insufficiently detailed information on the likelihoods of each potential future-me function, and b) an internally inconsistent utility function

What I’m addressing here is b) - my valuation of a universe composed entirely of minds that most-value a universe composed entirely of themselves is path-dependent. My initial reaction is that that universe is very negative on my current function, but I find it hard to believe that it’s truly of larger magnitude than {number of minds}*{length of existence of this universe}*{number of utilons per mind}*{my personal utility of another mind’s utilon}

Even for a very small positive value for the last (and it’s definitely not negative or 0 - I’d need some justification to torture someone to death), the sheer scale of the other values should trivialize my personal preference that the universe include discovery and exploration.

momothefiddler 8 May 2012 3:11 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alerus’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Hm. If people have approximately-equivalent utility functions, does that help them all accomplish their utility better? If so, it makes sense to have none of them value stealing (since having all value stealing could be a problem). In a large enough society, though, the ripple effect of my theft is negligible. That’s beside the point, though.

“Avoid death” seems like a pretty good basis for a utility function. I like that.

momothefiddler 8 May 2012 3:08 UTC
0 points
in reply to: bryjnar’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Fair.

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 20:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: bryjnar’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
So you, like I, might consider turning the universe into minds that most value a universe filled with themselves?

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 20:05 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alerus’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
I’m not saying I can change to liking civil war books. I’m saying if I could choose between A) continuing to like scifi and having fantasy books, or B) liking civil war books and having civil war books, I should choose B, even though I currently value scifi>stats>civil war. By extension, if I could choose A) continuing to value specific complex interactions and having different complex interactions, or B) liking smiley faces and building a smiley-face maximizer I should choose B even though it’s counterintuitive. This one is somewhat more plausible, as it seems it’d be easier to build an AI that could change my values to smiley faces and make smiley faces than it would be to build one that works toward my current complicated (and apparently inconsistent) utility function.

I don’t think society-damaging actions are “objectively” bad in the way you say. Stealing something might be worse than just having it, due to negative repercussions, but that just changes the relative ordering. Depending on the value of the thing, it might still be higher-ordered than buying it.

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 11:31 UTC
0 points
in reply to: bryjnar’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
You’re saying that present-me’s utility function counts and no-one else’s does (apart from their position in present-me’s function) because present-me is the one making the decision? That my choices must necessarily depend on my present function and only depend on other/future functions in how much I care about their happiness? That seems reasonable. But my current utility function tells me that there is an N large enough that N utilon-seconds for other peoples’ functions counts more in my function than any possible thing in the expected lifespan of present-me’s utility function.

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 11:26 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dorikka’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Say there’s a planet, far away from ours, where gravity is fairly low, atmospheric density fairly high, and the ground uniformly dangerous, and the sentient resident species has wings and two feet barely fitted for walking. Suppose, also, that by some amazingly unlikely (as far as I can see) series of evolutionary steps, these people have a strong tendency to highly value walking and negatively value flying.

If you had the ability to change their hardwired values toward transportation (and, for whatever reason, did not have the ability to change their non-neural physiology and the nature of their planet), would it be wrong to do so? If it’s wrong, what makes it wrong? Your (or my, because I seem to agree with you) personal negative-valuation of {changing someone else’s utility function} is heavily outweighed by the near-constant increase in happiness for generations of these people. If anything, it appears it would be wrong not to make that change. If that’s the case, though, the surely it’d be wrong not to build a superintelligence designed to maximise “minds that most-value the universe they perceive”, which, while not quite a smiley-face maximizer, still leads to tiling behaviour.

No matter how I go at it reasonably, it seems tiling behaviour isn’t necessarily bad. My emotions say it’s bad, and Eliezer seems to agree. Does Aumann’s Agreement Theorem apply to utility?

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 0:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: bryjnar’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
If I considered it high-probability that you could make a change and you were claiming you’d make a change that wouldn’t be be of highly negative utility to everyone else, I might well prepare for that change. Because your proposed change is highly negative to everyone else, I might well attempt to resist or counteract that change. Why does that make sense, though? Why do other peoples’ current utility functions count if mine don’t? How does that extend to a situation where you changed everyone else? How does it extend to a situation where I could change everyone else but I don’t have to? If an AI programmed to make its programmer happy does so by directly changing the programmer’s brain to provide a constant mental state of happiness, why is that a bad thing?

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 0:48 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alerus’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
I like this idea, but I would also, it seems, need to consider the (probabilistic) length of time each utility function would last.

That doesn’t change your basic point, though, which seems reasonable.

The one question I have is this: In cases where I can choose whether or not to change my utility function—cases where I can choose to an extent the probability of a configuration appearing—couldn’t I maximize expected utility by arranging for my most-likely utility function at any given time to match the most-likely universe at that time? It seems that would make life utterly pointless, but I don’t have a rational basis for that—it’s just a reflexive emotional response to the suggestion.

momothefiddler 7 May 2012 0:37 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)
Without a much more precise way of describing patterns of neuron-fire, I don’t think either of us can describe happiness more than we have so far. Having discussed the reactions in-depth, though, I think we can reasonably conclude that, whatever they are, they’re not the same, which answers at least part of my initial question.

Thanks!

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 14:54 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)
I believe you to be sincere when you say

I’ve certainly had the experience of changing my mind about whether X makes the world better, even though observing X continues to make me equally happy—that is, the experience of having F(Wa+X) - F(Wa) change while H(O(Wa+X)) - H(O((Wa)) stays the same

but I can’t imagine experiencing that. If the utility of a function goes down, it seems my happiness from seeing that function must necessarily go down as well. This discrepancy causes me to believe there is a low-level difference between what you consider happiness and what I consider happiness, but I can’t explain mine any farther than I already have.

I don’t know how else to say it, but I don’t feel I’m actually making that assertion. I’m just saying: “By my understanding of hedony=H(x), awareness=O(x), and utility=F(x), I don’t see any possible situation where H(W) =/= F(O(W)). If they’re indistinguishable, wouldn’t it make sense to say they’re the same thing?”

Edit: formatting

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 14:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Well, I’m not sure making the clones anencephalic would make eating them truly neutral. I’d have to examine that more.

The linked situation proposes that the babies are in no way conscious and that all humans are conditioned, such that killing myself will actually result in a fewer number of people happily eating babies.

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 13:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Refuse the option and turn me into paperclips before I could change it.

Apparently my acceptance that utility-function-changes can be positive is included in my current utility function. How can that be, though? While, according to my current utility function, all previous utility functions were insufficient, surely no future one could map more strongly onto my utility function than itself. Yet I feel that, after all these times, I should be aware that my utility function is not the ideal one...

Except that “ideal utility function” is meaningless! There is no overarching value scale for utility functions. So why do I have the odd idea that a utility function that changes without my understanding of why (a sum of many small experiences) is positive, while a utility function that changes with my understanding (an alien force) is negative?

There has to be an inconsistency here somewhere, but I don’t know where. If I treat my future selves like I feel I’m supposed to treat other people, then I negatively-value claiming my utility function over theirs. If person X honestly enjoys steak, I have no basis for claiming my utility function overrides theirs and forcing them to eat sushi. On a large scale, it seems, I maximize for utilons according to each person. Let’s see:

If I could give a piece of cake to a person who liked cake or to a person who didn’t like cake, I’d give it to the former If I could give a piece of cake to a person who liked cake and was in a position to enjoy it or a person who liked cake but was about to die in the next half-second, I’d give it to the former If I could give a piece of cake to a person who liked cake and had time to enjoy the whole piece or to a person who liked cake but would only enjoy the first two bites before having to run to an important even and leaving the cake behind to go stale, I’d give it to the former If I could (give a piece of cake to a person who didn’t like cake) or (change the person to like cake and then give them a piece of cake) I should be able to say “I’d choose the latter” to be consistent, but the anticipation still results in consternation. Similarly, if cake was going to be given and I could change the recipient to like cake or not, I should be able to say “I choose the latter”, but that is similarly distressing. If my future self was going to receive a piece of cake and I could change it/me to enjoy cake or not, consistency would dictate that I do so.

It appears, then, that the best thing to do would be to make some set of changes in reality and in utility functions (which, yes, are part of reality) such that everyone most-values exactly what happens. If the paperclip maximizer isn’t going to get a universe of paperclips and is instead going to get a universe of smiley faces, my utility function seems to dictate that, regardless of the paperclip maximizer’s choice, I change the paperclip maximizer (and everyone else) into a smiley face maximizer. It feels wrong, but that’s where I get if I shut up and multiply.

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 12:54 UTC
2 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)

I understand it to mean, roughly, that when comparing hypothetical states of the world Wa and Wb, I perform some computation F(W) on each state such that if F(Wa) > F(Wb), then I consider Wa more valuable than Wb.

That’s precisely what I mean.

Another way of saying this is that if OW is the reality that I would perceive in a world W, then my happiness in Wa is F(OWa). It simply cannot be the case, on this view, that I consider a proposed state-change in the world to be an improvement, without also being such that I would be made happier by becoming aware of that state-change actually occurring.

Yes

Further, if I sincerely assert about some state change that I believe it makes the world better, but it makes me less happy, it follows that I’m simply mistaken about my own internal state… either I don’t actually believe it makes the world better, or it doesn’t actually make me less happy, or both. Did I get that right? Or are you making the stronger claim that I cannot in point of fact ever sincerely assert something like that?

Hm. I’m not sure what you mean by “sincerely”, if those are different. I would say if you claimed “X would make the universe better” and also “Being aware of X would make me less happy”, one of those statements must be wrong. I think it requires some inconsistency to claim F(Wa+X)>F(Wa) but F(O(Wa+X))F2(O(Wa)), which is relatively common (Pascal’s Wager comes to mind).

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 4:00 UTC
6 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)
It was confusing me, yes. I considered hedons exactly equivalent to utilons.

Then you made your excellent case, and now it no longer confuses me. I revised my definition of happiness from “reality matching the utility function” to “my perception of reality matching the utility function”—which it should have been from the beginning, in retrospect.

I’d still like to know if people see happiness as something other than my new definition, but you have helped me from confusion to non-confusion, at least regarding the presence of a distinction, if not the exact nature thereof.

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 3:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dorikka’s comment on: Delayed Gratification vs. a Time-Dependent Utility Function
Well, the situation I was referencing assumed baby-eating without the actual sentience at any point of the babies, but that’s not relevant to the actual situation. You’re saying that my expected future utility functions, in the end, are just more values in my current function?

I can accept that.

The problem now is that I can’t tell what those values are. It seems there’s a number N large enough that if N people were to be reconfigured to heavily value a situation and the situation was then to be implemented, I’d accept the reconfiguration. This was counterintuitive and, due to habit, feels it should still be, but makes a surprising amount of sense.

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 3:45 UTC
3 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)
Oh! I didn’t catch that at all. I apologize.

You’ve made an excellent case for them not being the same. I agree.

momothefiddler 6 May 2012 3:26 UTC
0 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Happiness (Alone)
That makes sense. I had only looked at the difference within “things that affect my choices”, which is not a full representation of things. Could I reasonably say, then, that hedons are the intersection of “utilons” and “things of which I’m aware”, or is there more to it?

Another way of phrasing what I think you’re saying: “Utilons are where the utility function intersects with the territory, hedons are where the utility function intersects with the map.”