A side conversation developed a possible alternative crux: “Maybe @ESYudkowsky thinks (a) everyone has a True Objective Function, even if they aren't aware of it, or (b) everyone _ought_ to have an objective function and it's irrational not to have one.” And I disagree.
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.”
-
I don’t actually care what Gods can/can’t do. But, since actions, outcomes, and preferences are not objective features of reality, I don’t think they could always apply DT either.
- 3 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.