I didn't claim virtue ethics says not to predict consequences of actions. I said that a virtue is more like a procedure than it is like a utility function. A procedure can include a subroutine predicting the consequences of actions and it doesn't become any more of a utility function by that.

The notion that "intelligence is channeled differently" under virtue ethics requires some sort of rule, like the consequentialist argmax or Bayes, for converting intelligence into ways of choosing.

Consequentialism is an approach for converting intelligence (the ability to make use of symmetries to e.g. generalize information from one context into predictions in another context or to e.g. search through highly structured search spaces) into agency, as one can use the intelligence to predict the consequences of actions and find a policy which achieves some criterion unusually well.

While it seems intuitively appealing that non-consequentialist approaches could be used to convert intelligence into agency, I have tried a lot and not been able to come up with anything convincing. For virtues in particular, I would intuitively think that a virtue is not a motivator per se, but rather the policy generated by the motivator. So I think virtue-driven AI agency just reduces to ordinary programming/GOFAI, and that there's no general virtue-ethical algorithm to convert intelligence into agency.

The most straightforward approach to programming a loyal friend would be to let the structure of the program mirror the structure^[1] of the loyal friendship. That is, you would think of some situation that a loyal friend might encounter, and write some code that detects and handles this situation. Having a program whose internal structure mirrors its external behavior avoids instrumental convergence (or any kind of convergence) because each behavior is specified separately and one can make arbitrary exceptions as one sees fit. However, it also means that the development and maintenance burden scales directly with how many situations the program generalizes to.

1. ^{^}

   This is the "standard" way to write programs - e.g. if you make a SaaS app, you often have template files with a fairly 1:1 correspondence to the user interface, database columns with a 1:many correspondence to the user interface fields, etc.. By contrast, a chess bot that does a tree search does not have a 1:1 correspondence between the code and the plays; for instance the piece value table does not clearly affect it's behavior in any one situation, but obviously kinda affects its behavior in almost all situations. (I don't think consequentialism is the only way for the structure of a program to not mirror the structure of its behavior, but it's the most obvious way.)

Not sure what you mean. Are you doing a definitional dispute about what counts as the "standard" definition of Bayesian networks?

Your linked paper is kind of long - is there a single part of it that summarizes the scoring so I don't have to read all of it?

Either way, yes, it does seem plausible that one could create a market structure that supports latent variables without rewarding people in the way I described it.

I'm not convinced Scott Alexander's mistakes page accurately tracks his mistakes. E.g. the mistake on it I know the most about is this one:

56: (5/27/23) In Raise Your Threshold For Accusing People Of Faking Bisexuality, I cited a study finding that most men’s genital arousal tracked their stated sexual orientation (ie straight men were aroused by women, gay men were aroused by men, bi men were aroused by either), but women’s genital arousal seemed to follow a bisexual pattern regardless of what orientation they thought they were - and concluded that although men’s orientation seemed hard-coded, women’s orientation must be more psychological. But Ozy cites a followup study showing that women (though not men) also show genital arousal in response to chimps having sex, suggesting women’s genital arousal doesn’t track actual attraction and is just some sort of mechanical process triggered by sexual stimuli. I should not have interpreted the results of genital arousal studies as necessarily implying attraction.

But that's basically wrong. The study found women's arousal to chimps having sex to be very close to their arousal to nonsexual stimuli, and far below their arousal to sexual stimuli.

I mean I don't really believe the premises of the question. But I took "Even if you're not a fan of automating alignment, if we do make it to that point we might as well give it a shot!" to imply that even in such a circumstance, you still want me to come up with some sort of answer.

I talk to geneticists (mostly on Twitter, or rather now BlueSky) and they don't really know about this stuff.

(Presumably there exists some standard text about this that one can just link to lol.)

I don't think so.

I'm still curious whether this actually happens.... I guess you can have the "propensity" be near its ceiling.... (I thought that didn't make sense, but I guess you sometimes have the probability of disease for a near-ceiling propensity be some number like 20% rather than 100%?) I guess intuitively it seems a bit weird for a disease to have disjunctive causes like this, but then be able to max out at the risk at 20% with just one of the disjunctive causes? IDK. Likewise personality...

For something like divorce, you could imagine the following causes:

• Most common cause is you married someone who just sucks
• ... but maybe you married a closeted gay person
• ... or maybe your partner was good but then got cancer and you decided to abandon them rather than support them through the treatment

The genetic propensities for these three things are probably pretty different: If you've married someone who just sucks, then a counterfactually higher genetic propensity to marry people who suck might counterfactually lead to having married someone who sucks more, but a counterfactually higher genetic propensity to marry a closeted gay person probably wouldn't lead to counterfactually having married someone who sucks more, nor have much counterfactual effect on them being gay (because it's probably a nonlinear thing), so only the genetic propensity to marry someone who sucks matters.

In fact, probably the genetic propensity to marry someone who sucks is inversely related to the genetic propensity to divorce someone who encounters hardship, so the final cause of divorce is probably even more distinct from the first one.

Ok, more specifically, the decrease in the narrowsense heritability gets "double-counted" (after you've computed the reduced coefficients, those coefficients also get applied to those who are low in the first chunk and not just those who are high, when you start making predictions), whereas the decrease in the broadsense heritability is only single-counted. Since the single-counting represents a genuine reduction while the double-counting represents a bias, it only really makes sense to think of the double-counting as pathological.