Weird things CAN happen if others can cause you to kill people with your bare hands (See Lexi-Pessimist Pump here). But assuming you can choose to never be in a world where you kill someone with your bare hands, I also don't think there are problems? The world states may as well just not exist.
(Also, not money pump, but consider: Say I have 10^100 perfectly realistic mannequin robots and one real human captive. I give the constrained utilitarian the choice between choking one of the bodies with their bare hands or let me wipe out humanity. Does the agent really choose to not risk killing someone themself?)
I didn't want this change, it just happened.
I might be misunderstanding- isn't this what the question was? Whether we should want (/be willing to) change our values?
Sometimes I felt like a fool afterward, having believed in stupid things
The problem with this is: If I change your value system in any direction, the hypnotized "you" will always believe that the intervention was positive. If I hypnotized you to believe that being carnivorous was more moral by changing your underlying value system to value animal suffering, then that version of you would view the current version of yourself as foolish and immoral.
There are essentially two different beings: carnivorous-Karl, and vegan-Karl. But only one of... (read more)
My language was admittedly overly dramatic, but I don't think it make rational sense to want to change your values for the sake of just having the new value. If I wanted to value something, then by definition I would already value that thing. That said, I might not take actions based on that value if:
I think that actions like becoming vegan are more like overcoming the above points than fundamentally changing your values. Presumably, you already valued things like "the absence of death and suffering" before becoming... (read more)
If I were convinced to value things, I would no longer be myself. Changing values is suicide.
You might somehow convince me through hypnosis that eating babies is actually kind of fun, and after that, that-which-inhabits-my-body would enjoy eating babies. However, that being would no longer be me. I'm not sure what a necessary and sufficient condition is for recognizing another version of myself, but sharing values is at least part of the necessary condition.
I'd think the goal for 1,2,3 is to find/fix the failure modes? And for 4 to find a definition of "optimizer" that fits evolution/humans, but not paperclips? Less sure about 5,6, but there is something similar to the others about "finding the flaw in reasoning"
Here's my take on the prompts:
This is besides the point of your own comment, but “how big are bullshit jobs as % of GDP” is exactly 0 by definition!
Epistemic Status: This post is mainly me learning in public as my final project for the ML Safety Scholars Program. Errors are very possible, corrections very welcome.
From my limited perspective as a curious undergrad student, ELK research seems like a perfect way for the relatively inexperienced to try out AI safety research:
It seems possible that one of the biggest barriers to... (read 1545 more words →)
Most metrics of productivity/success are at a stable equilibrium in my life. For example:
When I am looking for rationalist content and can't find it, using Metaphor (free) usually finds what I want (sometimes even without a rationalist-specific prompt. Could be the data it was trained on? In any case, it does what I want.)
Don't there already exist extensions for google that you can use to whitelist certain websites (parental locks and such)? I'd think you could just copy paste a list of rationalist blogs into something like that? This seems like what you are proposing to create, unless I misunderstand.