Slightly more than that. I suggest that reflecting on and being willing to change our values/adaptations is itself a human value/adaptation, and that CEV focussed on that as the whole answer, whereas I see it as necessary part, one that primarily kicks in when we realize our evolved values are maladaptive. (In general, humans are quite good at being smart social primates: for example, we’re not born with an instinctive fear of snakes and spiders, instead, we appear to have hardwired recognition for both of these as categories and the ability to learn very efficiently which specific species of them to be afraid of from the rest of our culture.) But yes, I see CEV as a useful contribution.
However, don’t see CEV as a clear definition to start a Value Learning research program from: if you are trying to hard-code into AI a directive to “align yourself to human values, we can’t tell you exactly what they are in detail (though see the attached copy of our Internet for evidence), but here’s a formal definition of what you’re looking for”, then I think Evolutionary Psychology is a lot firmer basis for the formal definition than CEV. I see CEV more as a correct explanation as to why a simplistic answer of just “current human behavioral adaptations and nothing more” would be oversimplistic — reflection gives humans a way to “in-context learn” on top of what evolution warm-started us with, and that in itself is an evolved adaptive capacity.
However, if your point is that “an Alternative Proposal to CEV” in my title was a rhetorical oversimplification and “a Proposal for Significant Additions to and Theoretical Underpinnings for CEV, While Still Incorporating a Scope-Reduced and Slightly Modified Version of it as a Corollary” would have been more accurate (though much wordier) then I stand guilty-as-charged.
Slightly more than that. I suggest that reflecting on and being willing to change our values/adaptations is itself a human value/adaptation, and that CEV focussed on that as the whole answer, whereas I see it as necessary part, one that primarily kicks in when we realize our evolved values are maladaptive. (In general, humans are quite good at being smart social primates: for example, we’re not born with an instinctive fear of snakes and spiders, instead, we appear to have hardwired recognition for both of these as categories and the ability to learn very efficiently which specific species of them to be afraid of from the rest of our culture.) But yes, I see CEV as a useful contribution.
However, don’t see CEV as a clear definition to start a Value Learning research program from: if you are trying to hard-code into AI a directive to “align yourself to human values, we can’t tell you exactly what they are in detail (though see the attached copy of our Internet for evidence), but here’s a formal definition of what you’re looking for”, then I think Evolutionary Psychology is a lot firmer basis for the formal definition than CEV. I see CEV more as a correct explanation as to why a simplistic answer of just “current human behavioral adaptations and nothing more” would be oversimplistic — reflection gives humans a way to “in-context learn” on top of what evolution warm-started us with, and that in itself is an evolved adaptive capacity.
However, if your point is that “an Alternative Proposal to CEV” in my title was a rhetorical oversimplification and “a Proposal for Significant Additions to and Theoretical Underpinnings for CEV, While Still Incorporating a Scope-Reduced and Slightly Modified Version of it as a Corollary” would have been more accurate (though much wordier) then I stand guilty-as-charged.