I haven’t said that in this context, and in fact I very rarely put myself in positions where the possibility of treachery on my part is relevant—and when I have, I’ve generally given the other party significantly more evidence relating to the relevant bits of my psychology than either of us have given here on LW prior to doing so. (It doesn’t come up very often, but when it comes to RL interaction, I don’t trust humans very much by default, which makes it easy for me to assume that they’ll need extra evidence about me to be willing to trust me in such cases. Online is different; the stakes are lower here, especially for those of us who don’t use our official, legal names.)
There’s also the fact that for most of the common kinds of treachery, I can be sued and/or jailed, and for me both of those would be significant punishments. I suspect you can’t be sued—I believe it would be relatively easy for you to leave town and establish a new identity for your robot elsewhere—and I doubt that having your robot jailed would be significant as a punishment, since you can build another one, and you wouldn’t even permanently lose the first one.
Typical, everyday human treachery is not addressed by the legal system, either by design, or due to insufficient resources to pursue all but the most significant violations. Also,
I haven’t said that in this context, …
Indeed, you didn’t; I was performing a proof by reduction: that swapping out your predicates for others would achieve an equally true (for the general case) statement, yet be more obviously invalid.
Typical, everyday human treachery is not addressed by the legal system...
I suspect we’re referring to different things as ‘typical human treachery’. I was referring to, for example, theft and failure to uphold financial agreements, which I believe are adequately addressed by the legal system if the victim makes the expected amount of effort to have them addressed. (Also, less relevantly, physical assault.) What were you referring to?
...that swapping out your predicates for others would achieve an equally true (for the general case) statement, yet be more obviously invalid.
The rest of my statement in the relevant section was explaining that I don’t, in fact, expect people to trust me given only the amount of evidence about my psychology and habits that I’ve given here. I also wouldn’t expect people to trust me if I gave the amount of evidence about my psychology and habits that you’ve given, which seems to me to be less than the evidence that I’ve given, assuming that one accepts that I’m human. (It may, however, be relevant that the amount of evidence that I expect to have to give in order for someone to trust me is usually more than the amount of evidence I actually have to give in order for that person to trust me.)
I haven’t said that in this context, and in fact I very rarely put myself in positions where the possibility of treachery on my part is relevant—and when I have, I’ve generally given the other party significantly more evidence relating to the relevant bits of my psychology than either of us have given here on LW prior to doing so. (It doesn’t come up very often, but when it comes to RL interaction, I don’t trust humans very much by default, which makes it easy for me to assume that they’ll need extra evidence about me to be willing to trust me in such cases. Online is different; the stakes are lower here, especially for those of us who don’t use our official, legal names.)
There’s also the fact that for most of the common kinds of treachery, I can be sued and/or jailed, and for me both of those would be significant punishments. I suspect you can’t be sued—I believe it would be relatively easy for you to leave town and establish a new identity for your robot elsewhere—and I doubt that having your robot jailed would be significant as a punishment, since you can build another one, and you wouldn’t even permanently lose the first one.
Typical, everyday human treachery is not addressed by the legal system, either by design, or due to insufficient resources to pursue all but the most significant violations. Also,
Indeed, you didn’t; I was performing a proof by reduction: that swapping out your predicates for others would achieve an equally true (for the general case) statement, yet be more obviously invalid.
I suspect we’re referring to different things as ‘typical human treachery’. I was referring to, for example, theft and failure to uphold financial agreements, which I believe are adequately addressed by the legal system if the victim makes the expected amount of effort to have them addressed. (Also, less relevantly, physical assault.) What were you referring to?
The rest of my statement in the relevant section was explaining that I don’t, in fact, expect people to trust me given only the amount of evidence about my psychology and habits that I’ve given here. I also wouldn’t expect people to trust me if I gave the amount of evidence about my psychology and habits that you’ve given, which seems to me to be less than the evidence that I’ve given, assuming that one accepts that I’m human. (It may, however, be relevant that the amount of evidence that I expect to have to give in order for someone to trust me is usually more than the amount of evidence I actually have to give in order for that person to trust me.)