It avoids the failure mode of expecting other people's utility function to be subject to debate.
I think people (human beings) do not have utility functions, and the closest things to it that we do have (i.e., values and goals) are subject to debate. I believe this is also the local consensus.
Are you perhaps saying that we expect other people's values and goals to be more subject to debate than they actually are? If so, this is a novel idea for me. Can you give or link to a longer explanation?
(Yes, utility function over simplistic, etc.)
Are you perhaps saying that we expect other people's values and goals to be more subject to debate than they actually are? If so, this is a novel idea for me. Can you give or link to a longer explanation?
I refer to the difference between on one hand telling people their values are bad and on the other hand speaking as if the values of the subject can actually be determined by the speaker. The latter ignores the boundary between where one agent ends and the other begins. This is something humans often do, alb...
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.