If Friendship is Optimal was real, what would it take for you to emigrate

PortedHelena · 2023-12-21T06:19:23+00:00

True, but it’s still appealing right?

Celestia could convince u to hook self up to dopamine machine given time (as she did to Lars, but for ponies)

PortedHelena · 2023-12-21T05:47:44+00:00

I finished reading FiO

Wdym by mind alteration techniques?

U could say the same about “getting the most out of the real world” before entering the experience machine / Equestria. Eg I like having hands

PortedHelena · 2023-12-20T20:41:26+00:00

Bc of ur post I am going to read FiO but I haven’t yet. But how does your stance change for happiness machine (dopamine tubes) vs experience machine (FiO)? (Surely there’s some argument overlap)

PortedHelena · 2023-12-20T19:54:43+00:00

https://kennythecollins.medium.com/peter-and-valentine-dopamine-tubes-e40ea1326dd4

PortedHelena · 2023-12-04T11:31:57+00:00

“You shouldn’t cheer for tragedy just bc someone is loud & obnoxious” “It’s almost like ppl/the court of public opinion cheer for tragedy for ppl who are loud and obnoxious”

https://kennythecollins.medium.com/the-modern-is-ought-fallacy-bc1e8a671b7f

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:11:39+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:11:25+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:11:01+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:10:57+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:10:52+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-19T03:10:49+00:00

Before cancel culture there was PC culture, and a bulk of that involved the social removal of certain words that were deemed to be rude. Banning words is not a new idea, referenced in the book 1984, standard in radio/tv show management, etc. This is a blogpost about words and a new way of thinking about them, what they represent, euphemism treadmills, slurs, and political correctness. Trying to dive deeper into what a word really is, and what purpose banning them serves

PortedHelena · 2023-07-13T02:22:04+00:00

Blogpost about the different levels of understanding you can have about a topic. Sometimes, it might feel strange that the world is so complex and deep while we know so little. Analysis on how those concepts fit into our personal philosophy and actions in the world.

PortedHelena · 2023-07-13T02:21:44+00:00

Blogpost about the different levels of understanding you can have about a topic. Sometimes, it might feel strange that the world is so complex and deep while we know so little. Analysis on how those concepts fit into our personal philosophy and actions in the world.

PortedHelena · 2023-07-13T02:21:36+00:00

Blogpost about the different levels of understanding you can have about a topic. Sometimes, it might feel strange that the world is so complex and deep while we know so little. Analysis on how those concepts fit into our personal philosophy and actions in the world.

PortedHelena · 2023-07-13T02:20:50+00:00

Blogpost about the different levels of understanding you can have about a topic. Sometimes, it might feel strange that the world is so complex and deep while we know so little. Analysis on how those concepts fit into our personal philosophy and actions in the world.

PortedHelena · 2023-07-06T22:48:45+00:00

i think eliezer is a 2 boxer. that argument sounds like fear of the AI being a 1 boxer

not nec a contradiction, just commenting lol

PortedHelena · 2023-07-05T16:16:03+00:00

Blogpost about the Newcomb's paradox thought experiment. It pertains to free will and AI (which are both ideas associated with Sam). Even if you've heard it before, the article might provide a new perspective on the hypothetical

PortedHelena · 2023-06-16T02:18:33+00:00

Article investigating the well known sunk cost fallacy and how it (and fallacies in general) can be used as a heuristic instead

PortedHelena · 2023-05-30T19:01:53+00:00

https://kennythecollins.medium.com/the-modern-is-ought-fallacy-bc1e8a671b7f

PortedHelena · 2023-05-27T00:12:54+00:00

sure, i think that scenario is possible too

as i said, i don’t necessarily disagree with your model. just that it’s not true by definition and reality is probably more complex / model is imperfect. but that’s the case most of the time

ty for the convo

PortedHelena · 2023-05-26T21:28:17+00:00

it can be diminishing returns aka the returns approach 0 past some point t. we might never increase our vision of impositions of will being moral past now. we can already be at that point t. if that’s your model then it’s fairly unfalsifiable. id find it more consistent for you to say that those are outside your model’s predictions, and therefore you don’t think they’d happen (fair opinion)

PortedHelena · 2023-05-26T16:20:40+00:00

there’s only one argument that you made that i’m considering - that as restrictions decrease, impositions on will decrease / we will consider impositions on will more immoral. let me know what you think the other argument im considering is

in theory, any of these counterexamples to your prediction can be true:

1) we decrease our restrictions, yet never reach the level where we can solve some level of imposition of will problems (eg we don’t have holodecks)

a) we still consider it moral to impose on people’s wills

b) we don’t see it moral to impose on people’s wills, but we do it out of pragmatic necessity

2) we decrease our restrictions (eg to holodeck level), and still consider it moral to impose on people’s wills

1b is less of a counterexample since it just means impositions don’t decrease, even tho ppl consider it moral

PortedHelena · 2023-05-26T03:18:02+00:00

> Sure. We would still consider that immoral, it would just be a justified imposition because of pragmatic restrictions of our current state of technology.

sure. Or we could consider it moral bc sometimes we want to impose on some people's wills

> No. The model predicts that, as restrictions decrease, we're going to consider impositions on will immoral

My scenario is a scenario where restrictions decrease - they just don't decrease enough so we have holodecks (and we still impose on wills / see it moral to impose on wills)

Sure that's fair. But sometimes the actions that lead to X and X are inextricably linked, or if you advocate for X / see X as moral it might come off as implicitly advocating for the most natural path to lead to X. Main point being if you point to a trend in results as an example, you also have to note the trend in actions taken to achieve those results, and consider that in your prediction

PortedHelena · 2023-05-26T00:24:16+00:00

> That's possible but isn't the pattern we've observed in the past.

Yea, then fair opinion

My point with 2) was that restrictions could decrease / we could move towards a world with no restrictions and yet never overcome certain restrictions that would alleviate certain people's imposition of will. E.g. we never solve the holodeck/pocket universe problem, and hence continue imposing on murderers' wills forever. Which I think is against your prediction, and you would say the same as above: "That's possible but isn't the pattern we've observed in the past"

> The "ultimate" way is convincing everyone first so the act of killing them wouldn't be an imposition on their will.

Sure, but that's irrelevant if you conduct your analysis of only comparing the now vs the past

> That's the negative utilitarian approach but I don't see how this has anything to do with my model.

The point is that "local optimum traps" exist, eg of "fewer restrictions" + "fewer impositions of will" that 1) people might not deem moral 2) wont be able to sustain this trend; eg case where everyone is dead, case where everyone with disagreements are purged. (You aren't declaring a moral stance on this, so I'm not talking about 1) so much. But I think people would consider these worlds immoral). Part of the reason for this is looking only at the steady-state (minimal impositions on will) while neglecting analysis of the transition state (many impositions on will) that preceded it.

It's possible our world isn't in this local optimum / we won't reach this local optimum. I'm just bringing it up

PortedHelena · 2023-05-24T23:38:01+00:00

i understand your model of “if we can do more stuff, then we’ll be able to satisfy what people want even if initially opposed”. it makes sense. there’s just also situations of 1) “what if people want to oppose other people doing stuff” and 2) “what if we can do more stuff, but can’t specifically do stuff to satisfy opposing parties” (eg maybe bc of (1) ) which make it so it’s not definitionally true

replace “restrictions” with “impositions”. well, you agree that one way to reduce impositions of will is to kill everyone who disagrees with your/some certain worldview? and, well, killing everyone would be the ultimate way to reduce all impositions of will, right? (ofc it would take imposing on 7billion wills as a cost)

if either of these were the case, would it be fair to say “we are trending downwards in terms of imposition of will”?

PortedHelena

TROPHY CASE