I strongly disagree. While it’s ok to be on whatever state of the mind that causes you to suffer less and be more productive, I don’t think it makes sense to literally forget for it is that you’re trying to achieve. If nothing you do influences the outcome at all, if there’s literally no way to influence the p(doom), what you do is not what Yudkowsky uses the word “dignity” for. Dignity isn’t about living for longer, and it isn’t about doing something that has no chance of working. Don’t do things you think have literally no chance of actually reducing the probability of the world ending. Getting dignity points is about making our world be in a way that makes the survival less improbable. It’s not about the process of making in attempts. It’s about actually increasing the odds by some small amounts. And it’s about using the heuristic of “if the world looks less like a surviving one, better not go there”, about not performing undignified acts that violate deontology.
Be in whatever state actually helps the most; if deep down you know there’s some chance of it actually working, but you don’t want to feel the struggle as it’s counterproductive, not thinking about the impact might be helpful indeed. But if deep down you know there’s literally no chance of helping, not even a 1/10^20 chance, this is not something people should be doing, maybe they can try coming up with something that has better chances of working, look for something more dignified.
You don’t get dignity points for trying, you get dignity points for actually (or at least counterfactually) increasing the odds.
You don’t get dignity points for trying, you get dignity points for actually (or at least counterfactually) increasing the odds.
Yes, I think I understand this. The method that I am describing is not about increasing dignity necessarily. Rather, I am trying to point out that there is a particular state of mind, in which even if nothing that you would do matters, you could still work on your best guess of what would help. I of course completely agree that you should still work on the thing that is most likely to have a counterfactual impact.
But I like to give the extreme example of where you think that there is nothing that you can do, because if you can still work in that state productively on a futile agenda, then for any less dire circumstance where you can actually have an impact, you should be able to also be at peace in that situation. And I think being at peace. is more useful than to continually panic.
Another strategy I like to do is to think about the world where we survive, and then try to understand what sort of things I would have been doing in that world when what I have been doing has contributed to avoiding doom.
I don’t think it makes sense to literally forget for it is that you’re trying to achieve.
I might have not explained this well, but this technique is not about forgetting the doom at all, it’s just about disconnecting yourself from it emotionally. You can stop grasping the hope and be at peace with the imminent doom, but then still think about how to prevent the doom. That is the state of mind I’m trying to point at here. The consequentialist reasoning that you do in order to optimize away the doom does not need to be fueled by emotions of aversion and clinging.
In fact, I have found it counterproductive to experience these emotions. That is why I am suggesting this strategy. Again, it’s definitely not about forgetting the doom. It’s about being able to think about the doom without having your emotions yank your mind around uncontrollably.
(Hi Johannes!)
I strongly disagree. While it’s ok to be on whatever state of the mind that causes you to suffer less and be more productive, I don’t think it makes sense to literally forget for it is that you’re trying to achieve. If nothing you do influences the outcome at all, if there’s literally no way to influence the p(doom), what you do is not what Yudkowsky uses the word “dignity” for. Dignity isn’t about living for longer, and it isn’t about doing something that has no chance of working. Don’t do things you think have literally no chance of actually reducing the probability of the world ending. Getting dignity points is about making our world be in a way that makes the survival less improbable. It’s not about the process of making in attempts. It’s about actually increasing the odds by some small amounts. And it’s about using the heuristic of “if the world looks less like a surviving one, better not go there”, about not performing undignified acts that violate deontology.
Be in whatever state actually helps the most; if deep down you know there’s some chance of it actually working, but you don’t want to feel the struggle as it’s counterproductive, not thinking about the impact might be helpful indeed. But if deep down you know there’s literally no chance of helping, not even a 1/10^20 chance, this is not something people should be doing, maybe they can try coming up with something that has better chances of working, look for something more dignified.
You don’t get dignity points for trying, you get dignity points for actually (or at least counterfactually) increasing the odds.
I think Eliezer addressed this somewhere.
Yes, I think I understand this. The method that I am describing is not about increasing dignity necessarily. Rather, I am trying to point out that there is a particular state of mind, in which even if nothing that you would do matters, you could still work on your best guess of what would help. I of course completely agree that you should still work on the thing that is most likely to have a counterfactual impact.
But I like to give the extreme example of where you think that there is nothing that you can do, because if you can still work in that state productively on a futile agenda, then for any less dire circumstance where you can actually have an impact, you should be able to also be at peace in that situation. And I think being at peace. is more useful than to continually panic.
Another strategy I like to do is to think about the world where we survive, and then try to understand what sort of things I would have been doing in that world when what I have been doing has contributed to avoiding doom.
I might have not explained this well, but this technique is not about forgetting the doom at all, it’s just about disconnecting yourself from it emotionally. You can stop grasping the hope and be at peace with the imminent doom, but then still think about how to prevent the doom. That is the state of mind I’m trying to point at here. The consequentialist reasoning that you do in order to optimize away the doom does not need to be fueled by emotions of aversion and clinging.
In fact, I have found it counterproductive to experience these emotions. That is why I am suggesting this strategy. Again, it’s definitely not about forgetting the doom. It’s about being able to think about the doom without having your emotions yank your mind around uncontrollably.