For an example of a “type system for values” (agree it’s an imperfect computer sciency reference), check out the notion of attentional policies and values cards in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.10636
What we mean is that many types of things commonly gets called “values”: matters of taste, social norms, ideological slogans, etc. You may have a preference for “mini skirts” or “brownies over cookies”, but most people would agree those aren’t really values in the same way “honesty” or “creativity” are; they don’t say anything substantial about how you want to live, or what you think is important in life.
Oliver Klingefjord
Karma: 16
First off, brilliant work. Truly.
Second, I’m very curious what made you change your mind internally. Was there a sequence of events that led to this reevaluation?
Hi! Would prefer not to join Facebook, will the hangouts/zoom/skype link be posted here?
but words like “honesty” are too loose; one person may think honesty is never lying, for someone else honesty means “speaking from a place of authenticity at all times”, for someone else it’s something about epistemic humility.
Hence the need for a tighter type system than just strings, if we want to structurally reason over these.