If I am playing against a stronger player, do I have an incentive to be or not to be omnicidal? Is "everyone loses" preferable to "I win with probability 10% and lose with probability 90%"?
I think your idea is that "everyone dies" is an outcome that is possible but everyone wants to avoid, but is it true?
we might come up with a formal definition to what an "aligned agent" means
I believe this is the difficult part. More precisely, to describe what is the agent aligned with. We can start with treating human CEV as a black box, and specify mathematically what does it mean to be aligned with some abstract f(x). But then the problem will be to specify f(x).
Wait, do I understand it correctly that when people say "science has proved that even small amounts of alcohol are harmful", the actual scientific definition of "small amounts" is "one drink every day"?
To me that sounds a surprisingly lot for a "small amount", and I am in Eastern Europe. The idea that the recommended amount is two drinks a day is something I would expect in Russia, not in USA.
a friend suggested I research "Roko's". [...] Would be happy to discuss.
Contrary to what Wikipedia suggests, the people who enjoy discussing this topic on Less Wrong are mostly the newcomers who arrived here after reading Wikipedia. But we have a wiki page on the topic.
We are all predisposed to think in Binary terms; either/or, black & white, good or bad, etc. [...] Almost everything is on a gradient.
Another danger is that people who want to go behind the binary, often fall into one of the following traps:
I am also quite comfortable discussing political or U.S constitutional issues.
That is not a frequent topic here, for reasons. Maybe ACX is a better place for that.
would you set up the causal chain of events to one day reveal to humans that they do not have free will?
You would need to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. Otherwise you would be communicating something else than you intended.
So, considering that the debate on this topic is typically full of confusion, the answer is probably: no.
The chain of causality that makes your heart beat mostly goes outside your consciousness. (Not perfectly, for example if you start thinking about something scary and as a consequence your heart starts beating faster, then your thought did have an impact. But you are not doing it on purpose.)
The chain of causality that determines your day-to-day decisions goes through your consciousness. I think that makes the perceived difference.
That doesn't change the fact that your consciousness is ultimately implemented on atoms which follow the laws of physics.
Or do we blame [drug addicts] for having chosen a life that nobody would ever choose?
Uhm, yes? When I see teenagers in front of my window, trading stolen goods from a nearby supermarket for some dried grass, I do think they have some responsibility for what happens. Am I the asshole?
Sleeping too much can tire me out as much as sleeping too little.
If I consider getting off the bed in the morning, but I feel tired, is there an easy way to figure out whether I have slept too little or too much?
Taking a nap when I return home from work is like magic: it resets my brain so that the evening feels like getting an extra piece of weekend.
A crazy idea, I wonder if someone tried it: "All illegal drugs should be legal, if you buy them at a special government-managed shop, under the condition that you sign up for several months of addiction treatment."
The idea is that drug addicts get really short-sighted and willing to do anything when they miss the drug. Typically that pushes them to crime (often encouraged by the dealers: "hey, if you don't have cash, why don't you just steal something from the shop over there and bring it to me?"). We could use the same energy to push them towards treatment instead.
"Are you willing to do anything for the next dose? Nice, sign these papers and get your dose for free! As a consequence you will spend a few months locked away, but hey, you don't care about the long-term consequences now, do you?" (Ideally, the months of treatment would increase exponentially for repeated use.)
Seems to me like a win/win situation. The addict gets the drug immediately, which is all that matters to them at the moment. The public would pay for the drug use anyway, either directly, or by being victims of theft. (Or it might be possible to use confiscated drugs for this purpose.) At least this way there is no crime, and the addict is taken off the streets.
This would be especially useful in those situation where "everyone knows" the place where the drugs are being sold (because obvious addicts congregate there), but for some technical reasons it is difficult to prove it legally. Don't need to prove anything, just open a sales stand there saying "free drugs" and watch the street get clean.
This will make sense when mathematicians stop using pen and paper. Or maybe only for presenting the final equation. Otherwise solving an equation would take ten pages full of prose -- and the terse notation was historically invented to prevent exactly this.