So I’ve repeatedly had experiences where I seemed to do something clearly VNM-irrational that I’d call “scheming against myself”. This tends to happen most when different drives have different scorings of an action. Eg I’ve had this with food, with social media usage, various other things. Feels vaguely like a {pressure/tendency/gradient/pull}. Tends to be most noticeable as me-at-different-moments seeming to have different goals, yeah, so it does seem plausible it might be trading off what’s “in a goal slot” in some sense, but it tends to involve, like, some voters don’t want to go to sleep because then tomorrow comes, some voters want to go to sleep because tired, some voters want to go to sleep because tomorrow needs to go well. tomorrow-needs-to-go-well and avoid-tomorrow voters are fighty with each other and tend to use influence at cross purposes. central planning or whatever might be reading from these and trying to plan based on them, but the thing that is mixed is like, the votes about what is good. so I guess to the degree there’s a single reward signal involved, the things I’m describing are voters that sum up to that reward signal? something like that anyway.
Do you mean something like future-concerned drives versus myopic drives? (E.g., “don’t eat this much, because it’ll likely make you feel bad tomorrow” vs “eat this, it’s so yummy / feels so good”.)
To me, what you’re describing seems consistent with the model that Seth and I lean towards.
Maybe one thing that makes it seem like there’s a lot of “coherent intentional background computation” is the global workspace decision making that is responding to inputs from lots of drives?
(I’m interested in continuing this thread, but feel free to drop it.)
I am curious about examples, evidence, generally reasons you think this.
Hmm.
So I’ve repeatedly had experiences where I seemed to do something clearly VNM-irrational that I’d call “scheming against myself”. This tends to happen most when different drives have different scorings of an action. Eg I’ve had this with food, with social media usage, various other things. Feels vaguely like a {pressure/tendency/gradient/pull}. Tends to be most noticeable as me-at-different-moments seeming to have different goals, yeah, so it does seem plausible it might be trading off what’s “in a goal slot” in some sense, but it tends to involve, like, some voters don’t want to go to sleep because then tomorrow comes, some voters want to go to sleep because tired, some voters want to go to sleep because tomorrow needs to go well. tomorrow-needs-to-go-well and avoid-tomorrow voters are fighty with each other and tend to use influence at cross purposes. central planning or whatever might be reading from these and trying to plan based on them, but the thing that is mixed is like, the votes about what is good. so I guess to the degree there’s a single reward signal involved, the things I’m describing are voters that sum up to that reward signal? something like that anyway.
Do you mean something like future-concerned drives versus myopic drives? (E.g., “don’t eat this much, because it’ll likely make you feel bad tomorrow” vs “eat this, it’s so yummy / feels so good”.)
To me, what you’re describing seems consistent with the model that Seth and I lean towards.
Maybe one thing that makes it seem like there’s a lot of “coherent intentional background computation” is the global workspace decision making that is responding to inputs from lots of drives?
(I’m interested in continuing this thread, but feel free to drop it.)