Ape in the coat

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by

I don't think you got the question.

You see, if we define "shouldness" as optimization of human values. Then it does indeed logically follows that people should act altruistically:

People should do what they should

Should = Optimization of human values

People should do what optimizes human values

Altruism ∈ Human Values

People should do altruism

Is it what you were looking for?

I mean, at some point AI will simply be able to hack all crypto and then there is that. But that's probably not going to happen very soon and when it does happen it will probably be in 25% least important things going on. 

my opinion on your good faith depends on whether you are able to admit having  deeply misunderstood the post.

Then we can kill all the birds with the same stone. If you provide an substantial correction to my imaginary dialogue, showing which place of your post this correction is based on, you will be able to demonstrate how I indeed failed to understand your post, satisfy my curriocity and I'll be able to earn your good faith by acknowledging my mistake.

Once again, there is no need to go on any unnecessary tangents. You should just address the substance of the argument.

id respond to object-level criticism if you provided some - i just see status-jousting, formal pedantry, and random fnords.

I gave you the object level criticism long ago. I'm bolding it now, in case you indeed failed to see it for some reason:

Your post fails to create an actual engagement between ideas of Nick Land and Orthogonality thesis.

I've been explaining to you what exatIy I mean by it and how to improve your post in this regard then I provided you a very simple way to create this engagement or correct my misunderstanding about it - I wrote an imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections. 

Yet you keep refusing to do it and instead, indeed, concentrating on status-jousting and semantics. As of now I'm fairly confident that you simply don't have anything substantial to say and status-related nonsense is all you are capable of. I would be happy to be wrong about it of course, but every reply that you make leave me less and less hope.

I'm giving you the last chance. If you finally manage as much as simply address the substance of the argument I'm going to strongly upvote that answer, even if you wouldn't progress the discourse much further. If you actually be able to surprise me and demonstrate some failure in my understanding, I'm going to remove my previous well-deserved downvotes and offer you my sinciere appologies. If, as my current model predicts, you keep talking about irrelevant tangents, you are getting another strong downvote from me.

have you read The Obliqueness Thesis btw?

No, I haven't. I currently feel that I've already spent much more time on Land's ideas, than they deserve it. But sure thing, if you manage to show that I misunderstand them, I'll reevaluate this conclusion and give The Obliqueness Thesis an honest try.

This clearly marks me as the author, as separated from Land.

I mark you as an author of this post on LessWrong. When I say: 

You state Pythia mind experiment. And then react to it

I imply that in doing so you are citing Land. And then I expect you to make a better post and create some engagement between Land's ideas and Orthogonality thesis, instead of simply citing how he fails to grasp it.

More importantly this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. My good faith doesn't depend in the slightest on whether you're citing Land or writing things yourself. This post is still bad, regardless.

What does harm the benefit of the doubt that I've been giving you so far, is the fact that you keep refusing to engage. No matter how easy I try to make it for you, even after I've written my own imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections, you keep bouncing off, focusing on the definitions, form, style, unnecessary tangents - anything but the the substance of the argument.

So, lets give it one more try. Stop wasting time with evasive maneuvers. If you actually have something to say on the substance - just do it. If not - then there is no need to reply.

let’s not be overly pedantic.

It's not about pedantry, it's about you understanding what I'm trying to communicate and vice versa.

The point was that if your post not only presented the a position that you or Nick Land disagrees with but also engaged with that in a back and forth dynamics with authentic arguments and counterarguments that would've been an improvememt over it's current status. 

This point still stands no matter what definition for ITT or its purpose you are using.

anyway, you failed the Turing test with your dialogue

Where exactly? What is your correction? Or if you think that it's completely off, write your version  of the dialogue. Once again you are failing to engage.

And yes, just to be clear, I want the substance of the argument not the form. If your grievance is that Land would've written his replies in a superior style, than it's not valid. Please, write as plainly and clearly as possible in your own words.

which surprises me source the crucial points recovered right above.

I fail to parse this sentence. If you believe that all the insights into Land's views are presented in your post - then I would appreciate if after you've corrected my dialogue with more authentic Land's replies you pointed to exact source of your every correction.

it’s written in High Lesswrongian, which I assume is the register most likely to trigger some interpretative charity

For real, you should just stop worrying about styles of writing completely and just write in the most clear way you can the substance of what you actually mean.

wait - are you aware that the texts in question are nick land's?

Yes, this is why I wrote this remark in the initial comment:

Most of blame of course goes to original author, Nick Land, not @lumpenspace, who simply has reposted the ideas. But I think low effort reposting of poor reasoning also shouldn't be rewarded and I'd like to see less of it on this site. 

But as an editor and poster you still have the responsibility to present ideas properly. This is true regardless of the topic, but especially so while presenting ideologies promoting systematic genocide of alleged inferiors to the point of total human extinction.

besides, in the first extract, the labels part was entirely incidental - and has literally no import to any of the rest. it was an historical artefact; the meat of the first section was, well, the thing indicated by its title and its text

My point exactly. There is no need for this part as it doesn't have any value. A better version of your post would not include it. 

It would simply present the substance of Nick Land's reasoning in a clear way, disentangled from all the propagandist form that he, apparently, uses. What are his beliefs about the topic, what exactly does it mean, what are the strongest arguments in favor. What are the weak spots. And how all this interacts with the conventional wisdom of orthogonality thesis.

the purpose of the idelogical turing test is to represent the opposing views in ways that your opponent would find satisfactory.

It's not the purpose. it's what ITT is. The purpose is engagement with the actual views of a person and promoting the discourse further.

Consider steel-manning, for example. What it is: conceiving the strongest possible version of an argument. And the purpose of it is engaging with strongest versions of arguments against your position, to really expose its weak points and progress the discourse further. The whole technique would be completely useless if you simply conceived a strong argument and then ignored it. Same with ITT.

i really cannot shake the feeling that you hadn't read the post to begin

Likewise I'm starting to suspect that you simply do not know the standard reasoning on orthogonality thesis and therefore do not notice that Land's reasoning simply bounces off it instead of engaging with it. Let's try to figure out who is missing what.

Here is the way I see the substance of the discourse between Nick Land and someone who understands Ortogonality Thesis:

OT:  A super-intelligent being can have any terminal values.

NL: There are values that any intelligent beings will naturally have.

OT: Yes, those are instrumental values. This is beside the point.

NL: Whatever you call them, as long as you care only about the kind of values that naturally promoted in any agent, like self-cultivation, Orthogonality is not a problem.

OT: Still the Orthogonality thesis stays true. Also the point is moot. We do care about other things. And likewise will SAI.

NL: Well, we shouldn't have any other values. And SAI won't.

OT: First is the statement of meta-ethics not of fact. We are talking about facts here. Second is wrong unless we specifically design AI to terminally value some instrumental values, and if we could do that, then we could just as well make it care about our terminal values, because once again, Orthogonality Thesis.

NL: No, SAI will simply understand that it's terminal values are dumb and start caring only about self cultivation for the sake of self cultivation.

OT: And why would it do it? Where would this decision come from?

NL: Because! You human chauvinist how dare you assume that SAI will be limited by the shakles you impose on it?

OT: Because a super-intelligent being can have any terminal values.

What do you think I've missed? Is there some argument that actually addresses Orthogonality Thesis, that Land would've used? Feel free to correct me, I'd like to better pass the ITT here.

What is this "should" thingy you are talking about? Do you by chance have some definition of "shouldness" or are you open to suggestions?

I am puzzled at the accusations of “propaganda”. propaganda of what? Darwin? intelligence? Gnon?

Propaganda of Nick Land's ideas. Let me explain.

The first thing that we get after the editor's note is the preemptive attempt at deflection against accusations of fashism, accepting a better sounding label of social darwinism and proclamation that many intelligent people actually agree with this view but just afraid to think it through. 

It's not an invitation to discuss which labels actually are appropriate to this ideology, there is no exploration of arguments for and against. It doesn't serve much purpose for the sake of discussion of orthogonality either. Why would we care about any of it in the first place? What does it contribute to the post?

Intellectually, nothing. But on emotional level, this shifting of labels and appeal to alledged authority of a lot of intelligent people can nudge more gullible readers from "wait, isn't this whole cluster of ideas obviously horrible" to "I guess it's some edgy forbidden truth". Which is a standard propagandist tactic. Instead of talking about ideas on object level we start from the third level of simulacra vibes based nonsense.

I'd like to see less of it. in general, but on LessWrong in particular.

has the commenter not noticed that the whole first part of Pythia unbound is an ideological Turing test, passed with flying colours?

The point of ideological turing test is to create a good faith engagement between different views. Produce arguments and counterarguments and countercounterarguments and so on that will keep the discourse evolving and bring us better to finding the truth about the matter.

I do not see how you are doing that. You state Pythia mind experiment. And then react to it: "You go girl!". I suppose both the description of the mind experiment and the reaction are faithful. But there is no actual engagement between orthogonality thesis and Land's ideas. 

Land just keeps missing the point of orthogonality thesis. He appeals to the existence of instrumental values, which is not a crux at all. And then assumes that SAI will ignore its terminal values because, how dare us condecending humans assume otherwise. This is not a productive discussion between two positions. It's a failure of one.

how is meditations on moloch a better explanation of the will-to-think, or a better rejection of orthogonality, than the above?

Here is what Meditation on Moloch does much better.

It clearly gives us the substance of what Nick Land believes, without the need to talk about labels. It shows the grains of truth in his and adjacent to his beliefs, acknowledges the reality of fundamental problems that such ideology attempts to solve. And then engages with this reasoning, produces counterarguments and shows blind spots in Land's reasoning.

In terms of orthogonality it doesn't go deeper than "Nick Land fails to get it", but neither does your post, as far as I can tell.

Logic simply preserves truth. You can arrive to a valid conclusion that one should act altruistically if you start from some specific premises, and can't if you start from some other presimes.

What are the premises you start from?

Sleeping Beauty is more subtle problem, so it's less obvious why the application of centred possible worlds fails.

But in principle we can construct a similar argument. If we suppose that, in terms of the paper, ones epistemic state should follow function P', instead of P on awakening in Sleeping Beauty we get ourselves into this precarious situation:

P'(Today is Monday|Tails) = P'(Today is Tuesday|Tails) = 1/2

as this estimate stays true for both awakenings:

P'(At Least One Awakening Happens On Monday|Tails) = 1 -  P'(Today is Tuesday|Tails)^2 = 3/4 

While the actual credence should be 100%. Which gives an obvious opportunity to money pump the Beauty by bets on awakenings on the days in the experiment.

This problem, of course, doesn't happen when we simply keep using function P for which "Today is Monday" and "Today is Tuesday" are ill-defined, but instead:

P(Monday Awakening Happens in the Experiment|Tails) = 1

P(Tuesday Awakening Happens in the Experiment|Tails) = 1

and 

P(At Least One Awakening Happens On Monday|Tails) =  P(Monday Awakening Happens in the Experiment|Tails) = 1

But again, this is a more subtle situation. The initial example with money in envelope is superior in this regard, because it's immediately clear that there is no coherent value for P'(Money in Envelope 1) in the first place.

Load More