I do not intuitively understand, on the object-level, why worthy successors are harder to build than value-aligned sovereigns. (I understand how they are hardest to verify without >cope.)
Relatedly, if we back up on the problem and work to create more intelligent humans through eugenics, we are in fact attempting to delegate the problem to worthy successors.
My mental model of Eliezer says, “Eugenics is different from from-scratch mind design, because (not only) you are working in a restricted portion of mind-space, you also have great amounts of existing data describing the behavior of that portion.” Does this accurately describe why you think this is a noncentral example which lets it contradict the general tendency, “Worthy successors are harder than aligned sovereigns?”
I do not intuitively understand, on the object-level, why worthy successors are harder to build than value-aligned sovereigns. (I understand how they are hardest to verify without >cope.)
Relatedly, if we back up on the problem and work to create more intelligent humans through eugenics, we are in fact attempting to delegate the problem to worthy successors.
My mental model of Eliezer says, “Eugenics is different from from-scratch mind design, because (not only) you are working in a restricted portion of mind-space, you also have great amounts of existing data describing the behavior of that portion.” Does this accurately describe why you think this is a noncentral example which lets it contradict the general tendency, “Worthy successors are harder than aligned sovereigns?”