Do you have thoughts on how this can this be squared with trying to have principles and trying to follow something like functional decision theory? Consider the following (real) example:
I’m going to a building with an emergency fire exit, that I’m not supposed to open. Opening it doesn’t start an alarm and it’s the only door that directly leaders outside, so I want to open it to get some fresh air.
To me this seems like a clear example of a rule one should break, if one is slightly naughty. The problem is that to be allowed in the building I agreed to follow the house rules.
Opening the door feels almost like lying, and I’d rather not lie, I don’t think a FDT agent would open the door.
My best guess at a resolution is that I can open the window if the owner would allow me in knowing I’ll occasionally open it. If he’s fine with me doing it occasionally although he’d prefer that I never do it, I am allowed to open the window. But if he would throw me out if only, he knew that I broke the rule, then it doesn’t seem right to open the window. It’s not what a FDT agent would do. Even if I know I won’t be caught and I’m sure no problems will be caused by me opening the window.
But this seems like a very non-naughty way to act. I think most people would just open the window, if they really knew that they won’t be caught.
Or take this extreme example:
If I could press a button that made it impossible for me to lie, and this was common knowledge I’d press this button, even though it would probably make me much less naughty, but it would be worth it because of all the trust I’d gain. If I think about what I would be most annoyed at it’s situations where I’m expected to lie. If I’m asked at the airport if I belong to any “extremist ideologies” maybe I can get away with saying no because they really mean something like “violent ideologies”, and they don’t care about extreme believes I have about ethics or AI. But surely there are other situations where lying to a bureaucracy is just expected, and not being able to lie would be very annoying.
But everyone is already naughty in these situations, so I’m guessing you’re suggestions goes beyond lying in these kinds of situations.
while i dislike the word naughtiness and its connotations, i don’t see the contradiction. as the post state int he start “They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. ”. all Decision Theory rules are rules that matter.
this doesn’t answer the question of what rules to break and what not. but you cant be Lawful by following all laws in our way-to bureaucratic society.
my mother think that going outside while wearing pajamas is unthinkable. it can probably be described as naughty. it’s also totally harmless.
but also, now that i thought about you comment it become clear that i actually don’t know what is even the meaning of “Be Naughty”.
i think this is the kind of post that would benefit greatly from three examples at least.
Do you have thoughts on how this can this be squared with trying to have principles and trying to follow something like functional decision theory?
Consider the following (real) example:
I’m going to a building with an emergency fire exit, that I’m not supposed to open. Opening it doesn’t start an alarm and it’s the only door that directly leaders outside, so I want to open it to get some fresh air.
To me this seems like a clear example of a rule one should break, if one is slightly naughty. The problem is that to be allowed in the building I agreed to follow the house rules.
Opening the door feels almost like lying, and I’d rather not lie, I don’t think a FDT agent would open the door.
My best guess at a resolution is that I can open the window if the owner would allow me in knowing I’ll occasionally open it. If he’s fine with me doing it occasionally although he’d prefer that I never do it, I am allowed to open the window. But if he would throw me out if only, he knew that I broke the rule, then it doesn’t seem right to open the window. It’s not what a FDT agent would do. Even if I know I won’t be caught and I’m sure no problems will be caused by me opening the window.
But this seems like a very non-naughty way to act. I think most people would just open the window, if they really knew that they won’t be caught.
Or take this extreme example:
If I could press a button that made it impossible for me to lie, and this was common knowledge I’d press this button, even though it would probably make me much less naughty, but it would be worth it because of all the trust I’d gain. If I think about what I would be most annoyed at it’s situations where I’m expected to lie. If I’m asked at the airport if I belong to any “extremist ideologies” maybe I can get away with saying no because they really mean something like “violent ideologies”, and they don’t care about extreme believes I have about ethics or AI. But surely there are other situations where lying to a bureaucracy is just expected, and not being able to lie would be very annoying.
But everyone is already naughty in these situations, so I’m guessing you’re suggestions goes beyond lying in these kinds of situations.
while i dislike the word naughtiness and its connotations, i don’t see the contradiction. as the post state int he start “They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. ”. all Decision Theory rules are rules that matter.
this doesn’t answer the question of what rules to break and what not. but you cant be Lawful by following all laws in our way-to bureaucratic society.
my mother think that going outside while wearing pajamas is unthinkable. it can probably be described as naughty. it’s also totally harmless.
but also, now that i thought about you comment it become clear that i actually don’t know what is even the meaning of “Be Naughty”.
i think this is the kind of post that would benefit greatly from three examples at least.