I took a quick look. Overall, it appears that neither of us feels the other is getting our respective points. I don’t think the LW post characterizes my pov accurately. This is puzzling, but seems difficult to sort out, and probably not important for either of us.
Sometimes you can’t meaningfully map DT onto a situation (because there aren’t identifiable preferences or actions or outcomes). Sometimes you can do that and it still doesn’t work, because math isn’t mostly-truth preserving, only absolute-truth preserving.
-
-
So I think I still don’t understand what
@ESYudkowsky’s claim here is. Is the claim that you *can* always do a mapping? Or that you *should* always do a mapping? Or that *if* you can, then you should? Or that in somehow you should even when you can’t? -
To complicate further, I guess “can” could be interpreted two ways here, as “can, as an actual human on the scene” vs “can, as an omniscient hypercomputational external God.”
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.