I formulate a desiderata/procedure (called “phenomenal ethics” or “open-ended ethics”) :
Expanding the action space and autonomy of a maximum of phenomenons (enhancing ecosystemic values, and the means to reach/understand options), modulated by variables mitigating frantic optimizations (to respect natural evolving rates etc).
Utilitarianism based on well-being demands to define well-being, It demands to maximize happiness, but what is happiness? The classical issues arise : amorphous pleasure, wireheading, drug addiction etc. We need to find a tractable desiderata securing actions in an adequate value space.
I argue that the production of “well-being” is intrinsic to phenomenal/open-ended ethics. An ideal enactment of such procedure inherently maximizes the possibility of anyone/anything to do as they will; if *what they will* enhances the possibility of other ‘things’ to do *as they will* as well.
As a concept it’s quite elementary, but how to compute it properly?
The aim is to provide affordance, access to adjacent possibles, allow phenomena, ecosystems and individuals to bloom, develop diversity in as many dimensions as possible. I include in the desiderata phenomena that aren’t considered alive, any physical event is included (which is why I call it “phenomenal ethics”)
An agent (human/AI/AGI/ASI etc.) has to enhance the autonomy and available actions of existing “behaviors” (phenomenon/environment/agents etc.), which implies selecting out behaviors that aren’t causally beneficial to other behaviors (ecosystemic well-being).
Frantic transformation of everything in order to hunt new dimensions of possibilities is to be avoided, so we need to relativize the desiderata with other constraints added to the equation, (those parameters aren’t absolute but variables for value attribution) :
Existing phenomena is prioritized over potential phenomena
The intensity of impact of actions has to be minimized the higher uncertainty is
Phenomena untainted by AI’s causal power are prioritized over phenomena tainted by it
Normal rates of change are to be prioritized over abnormal ones
More care is to be given to phenomena in qualia’s continuum
Open-ended/Phenomenal Ethics (TLDR)
This is a short version of the more complete post
More clarity and context here
I formulate a desiderata/procedure (called “phenomenal ethics” or “open-ended ethics”) :
Expanding the action space and autonomy of a maximum of phenomenons (enhancing ecosystemic values, and the means to reach/understand options), modulated by variables mitigating frantic optimizations (to respect natural evolving rates etc).
Utilitarianism based on well-being demands to define well-being,
It demands to maximize happiness, but what is happiness?
The classical issues arise : amorphous pleasure, wireheading, drug addiction etc.
We need to find a tractable desiderata securing actions in an adequate value space.
I argue that the production of “well-being” is intrinsic to phenomenal/open-ended ethics. An ideal enactment of such procedure inherently maximizes the possibility of anyone/anything to do as they will; if *what they will* enhances the possibility of other ‘things’ to do *as they will* as well.
As a concept it’s quite elementary, but how to compute it properly?
The longer version of this post tries to expand on that.
The aim is to provide affordance, access to adjacent possibles, allow phenomena, ecosystems and individuals to bloom, develop diversity in as many dimensions as possible. I include in the desiderata phenomena that aren’t considered alive, any physical event is included (which is why I call it “phenomenal ethics”)
An agent (human/AI/AGI/ASI etc.) has to enhance the autonomy and available actions of existing “behaviors” (phenomenon/environment/agents etc.), which implies selecting out behaviors that aren’t causally beneficial to other behaviors (ecosystemic well-being).
Frantic transformation of everything in order to hunt new dimensions of possibilities is to be avoided, so we need to relativize the desiderata with other constraints added to the equation, (those parameters aren’t absolute but variables for value attribution) :
Existing phenomena is prioritized over potential phenomena
The intensity of impact of actions has to be minimized the higher uncertainty is
Phenomena untainted by AI’s causal power are prioritized over phenomena tainted by it
Normal rates of change are to be prioritized over abnormal ones
More care is to be given to phenomena in qualia’s continuum