What I’m observing in the various FAI debates is a tendency of people to shy away from wire-heading as something the FAI should do. This reluctance is generally not substantiated or clarified with anything other than “clearly, this isn’t what we want”. This is not, however, clear to me at all.
I don’t want that. There, did I make it clear?
If you are a utilitarian, and you believe in shut-up-and-multiply, then the correct thing for the FAI to do is to use up all available resources so as to maximize the number of beings, and then induce a state of permanent and ultimate enjoyment in every one of them.
Since when does shut-up-and-multiply mean “multiply utility by number of beings”?
If you don’t want to be “reduced” to an eternal state of bliss, that’s tough luck.
‘I don’t want that’ doesn’t imply ‘we don’t want that’. In fact, if the ‘we’ refers to humanity as a whole, then denisbider’s position refutes the claim by definition.
You do realize the same argument could “prove” that humans don’t want to live forever and enjoy giving our money to anyone clever enough to notice our preferences are circular?
I don’t want that. There, did I make it clear?
Since when does shut-up-and-multiply mean “multiply utility by number of beings”?
Heh heh.
‘I don’t want that’ doesn’t imply ‘we don’t want that’. In fact, if the ‘we’ refers to humanity as a whole, then denisbider’s position refutes the claim by definition.
You do realize the same argument could “prove” that humans don’t want to live forever and enjoy giving our money to anyone clever enough to notice our preferences are circular?