If I have a choice between actions, and one of them is more likely to save the world than the other, I will take the one that is more likely to save the world.
Even I don’t live up to that every time, not even close, but it sure sounds a lot scarier than “wanting to save the world”, doesn’t it?
“Save the world” is a very high-level goal, and I don’t know how to do it. Your procedure is straightforward. I just need to invoke it when I recognize there’s a choice. Resisting temptation is much easier (not just simpler, easier) than deciding whether you’re being tempted.
If I have a choice between actions, and one of them is more likely to save the world than the other, I will take the one that is more likely to save the world.
There are certain actions for me such that the impact that they have on the probability that the world will be saved is insignificant enough that such impact is overwhelmed by the amount of immediate fun that they will generate, so an action that generates lots of immediate fun may be more desirable than one which increases the chance that the world will be saved by a really-super-small amount. Are you saying that for EV_Eliezer, there is no increase small enough in the chance that the world will be saved such that a huge amount of immediate fun is of greater terminal utility?
Are you saying that for EV_Eliezer, there is no increase small enough in the chance that the world will be saved such that a huge amount of immediate fun is of greater terminal utility?
I think you quoted the wrong part to answer your question.
Even I don’t live up to that every time, not even close
It appears he takes many actions which he thinks are less likely to save the world than the known alternative.
If I have a choice between actions, and one of them is more likely to save the world than the other, I will take the one that is more likely to save the world.
Even I don’t live up to that every time, not even close, but it sure sounds a lot scarier than “wanting to save the world”, doesn’t it?
Much less scary.
“Save the world” is a very high-level goal, and I don’t know how to do it. Your procedure is straightforward. I just need to invoke it when I recognize there’s a choice. Resisting temptation is much easier (not just simpler, easier) than deciding whether you’re being tempted.
Also, that’s not actually your goal. You don’t rob banks.
Dunno—to me they sound almost equivalent (except that you have no other motivations at all, and I’m not sure I can honestly say that about myself).
In any case, I’m not sure what sounds scary. It’s all the people who don’t seem to want to improve the world in any way at all that scare me.
There are certain actions for me such that the impact that they have on the probability that the world will be saved is insignificant enough that such impact is overwhelmed by the amount of immediate fun that they will generate, so an action that generates lots of immediate fun may be more desirable than one which increases the chance that the world will be saved by a really-super-small amount. Are you saying that for EV_Eliezer, there is no increase small enough in the chance that the world will be saved such that a huge amount of immediate fun is of greater terminal utility?
I think you quoted the wrong part to answer your question.
It appears he takes many actions which he thinks are less likely to save the world than the known alternative.
Approximately what proportion of your actions (or time spent, if that’s easier to compute) have a clear chance of contributing to saving the world?