That’s true, this story did not specify what the hedonium shockwave was. I was referencing my conception based off conversations with people in this community I’ve had outside the context of this story, as well as the pattern of “greatest utilitarian maximization of positive valence for the universe”. I would imagine, for instance, if a superpowerful AI decided to create a hedonium shockwave because they are maximizing positive valence, they would not create something unfulfilling. That seems like a pretty low-level error (and one humans do seem to make a lot)! It is interesting how your definition of happiness could be compatible with unfulfilling. This is semantics, but my semantics intuitively would say, if it’s not fulfilling it’s not happiness. I think the term positive valence is this best way around semantics.
That’s true, this story did not specify what the hedonium shockwave was. I was referencing my conception based off conversations with people in this community I’ve had outside the context of this story, as well as the pattern of “greatest utilitarian maximization of positive valence for the universe”. I would imagine, for instance, if a superpowerful AI decided to create a hedonium shockwave because they are maximizing positive valence, they would not create something unfulfilling. That seems like a pretty low-level error (and one humans do seem to make a lot)! It is interesting how your definition of happiness could be compatible with unfulfilling. This is semantics, but my semantics intuitively would say, if it’s not fulfilling it’s not happiness. I think the term positive valence is this best way around semantics.