Actually, they are extremely well known outside of rationalist circles. Many subgroups of the Jewish and Buddist faiths are pretty much built upon these principles. My parents told me “don’t put all your chips on the table” and ~keep optionality open. Some might even argue this is the core principle that has led to “democracy”. And yes as you rightly mentioned these are clearly foundational principles behind LW and EA. That’s why I use the strong language of “circlejerk”. This is really unnecessarily reinventing common english phrases. Viatopia perhaps gives the idea a bit of an action relevant flavor so I guess it extends a bit beyond the others, still not particularly new or insightful.
“can you argue for this in a convincing and detailed way?”
I mean the argument is so underpowered it’s hard to even know where to start. I actually don’t even think the concept is coherent tbf but I’ll try.
Assuming you are coming from the view that: you can take some sentient (or intelligent) being, and you keep the “essence” of that sentient being but make it smarter and give it more inference time, that then all sentient beings will start whipping, dabbing, and hitting the nae nae in synchronicity.
(Which I would say there is no coherent concept of self modification/enchancement that preserves the original essence so already meaningless but if I cast that aside. )
Then sure, take a sentient beings whose value function is completely determined. It can never change it’s mind, taughtologically. So it will never hit this convergent nirvana. it’s values are already fixed.
I must be confused because I don’t see how this could be any other way. And the funny thing is, even if i’m wrong about this, and somehow if you jack up the iq and inference to wazooh and the atoms start vibing out this still wouldn’t make their goals correct. You still haven’t solved the is ought problem.
Actually, they are extremely well known outside of rationalist circles. Many subgroups of the Jewish and Buddist faiths are pretty much built upon these principles. My parents told me “don’t put all your chips on the table” and ~keep optionality open. Some might even argue this is the core principle that has led to “democracy”. And yes as you rightly mentioned these are clearly foundational principles behind LW and EA. That’s why I use the strong language of “circlejerk”. This is really unnecessarily reinventing common english phrases. Viatopia perhaps gives the idea a bit of an action relevant flavor so I guess it extends a bit beyond the others, still not particularly new or insightful.
“can you argue for this in a convincing and detailed way?”
I mean the argument is so underpowered it’s hard to even know where to start. I actually don’t even think the concept is coherent tbf but I’ll try.
Assuming you are coming from the view that:
you can take some sentient (or intelligent) being, and you keep the “essence” of that sentient being but make it smarter and give it more inference time, that then all sentient beings will start whipping, dabbing, and hitting the nae nae in synchronicity.
(Which I would say there is no coherent concept of self modification/enchancement that preserves the original essence so already meaningless but if I cast that aside. )
Then sure, take a sentient beings whose value function is completely determined. It can never change it’s mind, taughtologically. So it will never hit this convergent nirvana. it’s values are already fixed.
I must be confused because I don’t see how this could be any other way. And the funny thing is, even if i’m wrong about this, and somehow if you jack up the iq and inference to wazooh and the atoms start vibing out this still wouldn’t make their goals correct. You still haven’t solved the is ought problem.