An example of human acausal trade is the situation when a parent is planning to raise a child and expect that this child will help him when he will be old (It was popular in Eastern societies like China). This is a version of Roco’s Basilisk, where you create an entity expecting it to help you in the future. But it is less abound boundaries respect.
This example connects subjects located in different times and even epochs, so it may be more relevant to our turbulent time and to AI safety.
Yeah, maybe, it parallels Newcomb. Parents in filial culture say something like “I choose to feed you and teach you, because I can see who you are, and that you will follow through on your duties. If that changes, and I can see that you wont be filial, we owe you nothing” and so the child has to internalize filial values, even though being filial in the future doesn’t cause parental investment now, being the kind of person who would, is thought to.
There is causal and acausal components. Surely, the parent can causally program (teach) the child to do what he wants. But when he decide to conceive the child, he already did the biggest part of the contract.
A better example would be: I create a political party, and expect that if it win, it will call a street at my name and pay me a lot. The difference with service is that if I will not start this project, it will never exist at all. I may instead create some different project and get different benefits from it. So from my side it is a trade with an entity which is only possible at the moment of the trade.
An example of human acausal trade is the situation when a parent is planning to raise a child and expect that this child will help him when he will be old (It was popular in Eastern societies like China). This is a version of Roco’s Basilisk, where you create an entity expecting it to help you in the future. But it is less abound boundaries respect.
This example connects subjects located in different times and even epochs, so it may be more relevant to our turbulent time and to AI safety.
Yeah, maybe, it parallels Newcomb. Parents in filial culture say something like “I choose to feed you and teach you, because I can see who you are, and that you will follow through on your duties. If that changes, and I can see that you wont be filial, we owe you nothing” and so the child has to internalize filial values, even though being filial in the future doesn’t cause parental investment now, being the kind of person who would, is thought to.
I am no expert but how can that be an acausal trade? It’s more like an investment by the parent.
There is causal and acausal components. Surely, the parent can causally program (teach) the child to do what he wants. But when he decide to conceive the child, he already did the biggest part of the contract.
People don’t look after their aged parents in order to shape the past. They do it in response to the past.
Suppose I pay for some service that I am supposed to receive in the future, and then in the future I receive it. Is that an “acausal trade”?
A better example would be: I create a political party, and expect that if it win, it will call a street at my name and pay me a lot. The difference with service is that if I will not start this project, it will never exist at all. I may instead create some different project and get different benefits from it. So from my side it is a trade with an entity which is only possible at the moment of the trade.