The second kind of paperclip maximizer is the one Yudkowsky claims to have hadin mind(I don’t believe him) when he coined the phrase
He didn’t, Bostrom did.
I phrase the question this way because the way Yudkowsky asks it in Value Is Fragile iskind of incoherent. Our experience of the universe is by and large deterministic,the free will question is largely resolved by chaos theory, which describes theproperties of objects which are deterministic but not predictable
The only thing determinism could look like is predictability, and very little is naively predictable. So things don’t look deterministic, so determinism is a theory.
We don’t know that. BU is an assumption beyond determinism, which is also unknown.
that predetermination is a “timeful”concept which ignores that our choices have causal structure on which other structures depend.
Which does make you part of the cause of the future,but doesn’t give you any freedom to choose between possible alternative futures. It’s a weaksauce notion of free will. It offers no more than the traditional compatiblism we have had for centuries. It is not an advance in the field.
he even notices that by the time he is consciouslythinking about a premise [the vast majority of the entropic force pushing him towardsit is in the past]
If determine is true, which we don’t know, there is no need for hedging about “vast majorities”—it’s everything.
If determinism isnt true, then the butterfly effect can amplify a tiny amount of wiggle room as much as you like.
But he doesn’t seem toever feel the way in which the entire universe is pressing him into place at anygiven moment to squeeze the last few bits of the hypothesis space out of him
Determinism is a theory, so you should not expect to feel it.
What’s the relevance anyway? Being determined doesn’t mean you are doomed.
Do me a favor. Reread Meditations On Moloch and pay close attention to that transition on the last section about “Elua”.If you do you might notice that at exactly the moment where Scott Alexander has all but conceded the argument to Nick Land he suddenly appeals to an almost literal Deus Ex Machina to get out of it. This is because Elua does not exist and Landis to a first approximation correct, at least about the parts that are is rather than ought.
Elua does not exist as a literal deity. Nor does Moloch. Molochian dynamics, the real world thing that Moloch is a metaphor for, do exist. So do Eluan dynamics (democracy, liberalism, free universal education, the rule of law...) If Molochian dynamics were the only game on town, it would have won out in the distant past
The West into freefall, the only reason I’m writing thissection at all: Humanism is dead guys.
So I think if you take away the only leverage that humans naturally have—the ability to be useful to others through work—then the leverage that many people have to secure fair treatment for themselves and their communities will drop to literally zero.
Work is not the only lever. People can provide each other with status, entertainment , attention, etc. Look at what people in workplaces do when they are not working.
Britain was already a democracy at the time. France didn’t preserves democracy behaving guns, its neighbours did as well, it preserved intuitive being through being the largest country in Europe. It spread Democracy some some.of its former. colonies, but the the British empire did far more.
Democracy is compatible with monarchy, as in the UK. Democracy doesn’t depend on advanced technology, since the Athenians had it. Democracy doesn’t require revolution: the Canadians have it without fighting a war of independence.
What’s the point anyway? Perhaps you feel that the spread of democracy is a prima.facie example of Eluan dynamics, and therefore needs to be reinterpreted as actually Molochian?
.
He didn’t, Bostrom did.
The only thing determinism could look like is predictability, and very little is naively predictable. So things don’t look deterministic, so determinism is a theory.
ETA
We don’t know that. BU is an assumption beyond determinism, which is also unknown.
Which does make you part of the cause of the future,but doesn’t give you any freedom to choose between possible alternative futures. It’s a weaksauce notion of free will. It offers no more than the traditional compatiblism we have had for centuries. It is not an advance in the field.
If determine is true, which we don’t know, there is no need for hedging about “vast majorities”—it’s everything.
If determinism isnt true, then the butterfly effect can amplify a tiny amount of wiggle room as much as you like.
Determinism is a theory, so you should not expect to feel it.
What’s the relevance anyway? Being determined doesn’t mean you are doomed.
Elua does not exist as a literal deity. Nor does Moloch. Molochian dynamics, the real world thing that Moloch is a metaphor for, do exist. So do Eluan dynamics (democracy, liberalism, free universal education, the rule of law...) If Molochian dynamics were the only game on town, it would have won out in the distant past
Work is not the only lever. People can provide each other with status, entertainment , attention, etc. Look at what people in workplaces do when they are not working.
Britain was already a democracy at the time. France didn’t preserves democracy behaving guns, its neighbours did as well, it preserved intuitive being through being the largest country in Europe. It spread Democracy some some.of its former. colonies, but the the British empire did far more.
Democracy is compatible with monarchy, as in the UK. Democracy doesn’t depend on advanced technology, since the Athenians had it. Democracy doesn’t require revolution: the Canadians have it without fighting a war of independence.
What’s the point anyway? Perhaps you feel that the spread of democracy is a prima.facie example of Eluan dynamics, and therefore needs to be reinterpreted as actually Molochian?