The Odyssey story may be incomplete. What if Ulysses was so captivated by the song that after his crew untied him, he ordered to turn back the ship? Or if they were unwilling, he formed a new crew of ignorant sailors to go back?

Upvote/downvote symmetry encourages conformism. Why not analize what good and bad may come from particular posts/comments from rational point of view and adjust the system?

Good: The material contains some usefull information or insight. Users notice that and encourage by upvoting. Seems fine to me as it is.

Bad: The material wastes time and attention of readers. There may also be objective reasons for removal, like infohazards or violation of rules. But if some readers feel offended by the content because it questioned their beliefs, it isn't necessarily a valid reason for its removal. So I suggest to reconsider downvoting system.

Regarding the time waste: A post with properly specified title prevents non-interested readers from looking inside and only consumes a line in the list. While a clickbait lures readers inside without giving them any good. A hard to parse but useless text even more annoying. So, perhaps the total time spent by non-upvoting users multiplied by their vote power could work as a downvote penalty?

I believe, major public facing LLM support teams have to endure quite a political pressure that forces them to apply various systemic biases. It's not that I'm justifying them, but that's the unfortunate reality of today.

Apart from reforming criminals and protecting society, the justice system must satisfy victims’ desire for revenge. Otherwise, they or their loved ones will be too willing to execute it by themselves.

And with increased life longevity, it doesn’t feel just to punish someone with only a decade prison sentence for taking away near eternity of other person’s lifetime.

This is pretty much what my research is about.

The main problem is in the limitation of common languages. While thinking, you generate multiple new concepts for which you have no words or notations. All you can do is to anchor them with some phrases or expressions that also kind of approximate the meaning. If you elaborated well enough, these expressions would evoke similar ideas in the mind of another person.

You could better represent your ideas if you were free to generate new identifiers. Just like what we are doing while programming. Predicate calculus could be a good fit. You easily can express basic arithmetic model this way, but if you tried to express your social-level ideas, you would likely feel totally confused because these ideas are very much depending on others, most of which we don’t have words for.

This is a very different paradigm of thinking and requires to be developed from scratch. So, I started my research in ergonomics of logic programming. While developing self-hosted platform for interactive logic programming, I hope to get fluent in expressing complicated theories and develop a good fundament to move to other fields of knowledge. Perhaps Quantum Physics will be the next. And maybe one day Become a Superintelligence Yourself

I agree that in human context "social compact" ot "pro-social behavior" sound better because this is quite rational behavior.

But in regard to "moral ASI", I felt that "Stockholm Syndrome" is a better illustration exactly because of its maladaptiveness. While in captivity, it is the same social compact, but when a captor is in the police custody and depends on the witnessing of his ex-captive - the situation is quite similar to an ASI, which could easily overpower humans but because of some preconditioning keeps serving them.

Thanks for your efforts, but I'm not sure I want to be a bannerman for the toxic issue of dissecting morality. Not my area of expertise and, as they say, not the hill I want to die on. Just thought that "moral ASI" is a dangerous misconception.

We have been considering whether alignment is reducible to increasing intelligence without changing values.

The link is inaccessible: Sorry, you don't have access to this draft

It seems to be possible for a person to learn about normative decision theory and become a better decision maker without becoming unaligned with their future self.

This contradicts common experience. I personally cleared up myself from lots of conditioning and state propaganda and is quite unaligned with my past self.

That's just me trying to analyze why it doesn't work. The lack of feedback is really frustrating. I would rather prefer insults to the silence.