I apologize, Said; I misinterpreted your (clearly written) comment.
Reading your newest comment, it seems I actually largely agree with you - the disagreement lies in whether farm animals have sentience.
(No edit was made to the original question.)
Thanks for your answer!
I (strongly) disagree that sentience is uniquely human. It seems to me a priori very unlikely that this would be the case, and evidence does exist to the contrary. I do agree sentience is an important factor (though I'm unsure it's the only one).
"but certainly none of the things that we (legally) do with animals are bad for any of the important reasons why torture of people is bad."
That seems very overconfident to me. What are your reasons for believing this, if I may ask? What quality or qualities do humans have that animals lack that makes you certain of this?
One-boxing on Newcomb's Problem is good news IMO. Why do you believe it's bad?
Of course! Thanks for your time.
I can, although I indeed don't think it is nonsense.
What do you think our (or specifically my) viewpoint is?
Hmm, interesting. I don't know much about UDT. From and FDT perspective, I'd say that if you're in the situation with the bomb, your decision procedure already Right-boxed and therefore you're Right-boxing again, as logical necessity. (Making the problem very interesting.)
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your point here. I understand your analogy (I was a developer), but am not sure what you're drawing the analogy to.
I've been you ten years ago.
Just... no. Don't act like you know me, because you don't. I appreciate you trying to help, but this isn't the way.
"And not only do I not expect the trained agents to not maximize the original “outer” reward signal"
Nitpick: one "not" too many?