ah, I see—if it turns out OP was arguing for that, then I misunderstood something. the thing I understood OP to be saying is about the algorithm for how to generate responses—that it should not be retribution-seeking, but rather solution-seeking, and it should likely have a penalty for selecting retribution, but it also likely does need to be able to select retribution to work in reality, as you say. OP’s words, my italics:
In other words, when someone is wronged, we want to search over ways to repair the harm done to them and prevent similar harm from happening in the future, rather than searching over ways to harm the perpetrator in return.
implication I read: prevent similar harm is allowed to include paths that harm the perpetrator, but it’s searching over ?worldlines? based on those ?worldlines? preventing recurrence, rather than just because they harm the perpetrator.
If SpaceX drops a rocket on an irreplaceable work of art or important landmark, there’s no amount of money that can make the affected parties whole. Not that they shouldn’t pay compensation and do their best to repair the harm done anyway.
ah, I see—if it turns out OP was arguing for that, then I misunderstood something. the thing I understood OP to be saying is about the algorithm for how to generate responses—that it should not be retribution-seeking, but rather solution-seeking, and it should likely have a penalty for selecting retribution, but it also likely does need to be able to select retribution to work in reality, as you say. OP’s words, my italics:
implication I read: prevent similar harm is allowed to include paths that harm the perpetrator, but it’s searching over ?worldlines? based on those ?worldlines? preventing recurrence, rather than just because they harm the perpetrator.