Well see my edit to my first comment. I'll paste it here:

After giving it some more thought, I'm not sure voting systems are actually desirable. The whole point of voting is that people can't be trusted to just specify their utility functions. The perfect voting system would be for each person to give a number to each candidate based on how much utility they'd get from them being elected. But that's extremely susceptible to tactical voting.

However with FAI, it's possible we could come up with some way of keeping people honest, or peering into their brains and getting their true value function. That adds a great deal of complexity though. And it requires trusting the AI to do a complex, arbitrary, and subjective task. Which means you must have already solved FAI.

Do you agree that the fairest system would be to combine everyone's utility functions and maximize them? Of course somehow giving everyone equal weight to avoid utility monsters and other issues. I think these issues can be worked out.

If so, do you agree that voting systems are the best compromise when you can't just read people's utility functions? And need to worry about tactical voting? Because that is basically what I was getting at.

If you don't agree to the above, then I don't understand your objection. CEV is about somehow finding the best compromise of all humans' utility functions. About combining them all. All I'm talking about is more concrete methods of doing that.

Do you agree that the fairest system would be to combine everyone's utility functions and maximize them? Of course somehow giving everyone equal weight to avoid utility monsters and other issues. I think these issues can be worked out.

Anything you can do maximizes some combination of people's utility functions. So it is trivially true that the fairest system is a system which uses some combination of people's utility functions. Unless you can first describe how you are going to avoid utility monsters and other perils of utilitarianism, you really haven't said anything useful.

-1Lumifer5yNo, I do not. I do not think that humans have coherent utility functions. I don't think utilities of different people can be meaningfully combined, too. Ah, yes, the famous business plan of the underpants gnomes [http://blogs-images.forbes.com/artcarden/files/2011/07/300px-Gnomes_plan.png] ... No, I do not. They might be best given some definitions of "best" and given some conditionals, but they are not always best regardless of anything. What makes you think it is possible?

Open thread, Oct. 19 - Oct. 25, 2015

by MrMind 1 min read19th Oct 2015198 comments

3


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.


Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.