4 ms·

> Is it even ok to have kids? According to me (utility function, etc) it's required you have kids. Only in the 2.X statistical sense though, but if not what's

by Vecr 3y ago

> Is it even ok to have kids? According to me (utility function, etc) it's required you have kids. Only in the 2.X statistical sense though, but if not what's the point? You can't condition all your problems out, but you at least have to play to not lose.

rbanffy 3y ago
I’m not a huge fan of CS Lewis but the quote at the end is very on point. Let’s continue to be human and do human things. Change will come as it always does.
- Vecr 3y ago
  It's okay I guess if you think you have no causal impact on if any of that happens, but otherwise you better be doing something to help, even if it would only work in a tiny part of probability space, instead of waiting to die.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    Why waste time posting here that you could spend weaving mosquito nets, then? Surely this can't be a global maximum in utilon space.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      I'm talking about VNM utility, I'm not a utilitarian or a EA.
      - throwanem 3y ago
        VNM applied in the realm of ethics is definitionally utilitarian.
        Vecr 3y ago
        > That your utility function may be off model from the most doctrinaire possible interpretation of the theory does not seem to me the same as saying this is not an example of a theory. Sure, I don't want to get into a definitional argument. However, any VNM utility function can be the exact opposite of anything you propose as good, just by inverting the comparison order. If you have numerical outcome scores that could be as easy as my score =: 0 - your score > (Did you mean to reply to your comment rather than mine?) It's a HN thing.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. Again I grant this varies from Bentham's definition, but Bentham has been dead a long time now. Modern utilitarianism has been defined by Singer, for better or for worse - mostly worse - and Singerism is what I describe. In any case, Bentham's version still bears the flaw; 'good' can stretch with sufficient cleverness to cover all the virtue or deontology in the world. > It's a HN thing. I doubt that; this and your prior comment are the second and third time I've seen it in eleven years of active participation here. Are you using some kind of extension or script to augment the UI? If so, I strongly suspect that is causing it.
      - Vecr 3y ago
        > VNM applied in the realm of ethics is definitionally utilitarian. I assume you are thinking deontological ethics, virtue ethics, etc vs utilitarianism, but non-benthamite utility functions exist. Actually, if they didn't I assume a lot of AI doomers would be less doomy, as quite a few of them are utilitarians.
        throwanem 3y ago
        No, I'm thinking utilitarianism. I appreciate that the standard definition includes a term about "for the greatest number". But you're still defining an ethical utility function which you then seek to maximize. That your utility function may be off model from the most doctrinaire possible interpretation of the theory does not seem to me the same as saying this is not an example of the theory. The same could be said of effective altruism, which is anyway just the prosperity-gospel version of utilitarianism. That one should be doing utilitarianism badly does not mean one is not doing utilitarianism at all. (Did you mean to reply to your comment rather than mine?)
        Vecr 3y ago
        > Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. I think it's honest, as it really forces you to make a distinction between good (what should be) and real (what is). "Should" goes into the utility function, "is" goes into the world model. I'd honestly recommend giving it a shot if you have free time. > I doubt that; this and your prior comment are the second and third time I've seen it in eleven years of active participation here. It's the anti-flame war/spam thing kicking in. I'm manually responding to the "wrong post" but that's pretty much fine.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Oh, I see. If you click the timestamp on a comment, that view always has the reply form. Only in the thread view is the reply link hidden for the first few minutes after a comment is posted. I'm familiar with Hume. The is-ought distinction has value, but is orthogonal to utilitarianism, if not explicitly opposed.
  - dsign 3y ago
    Just this. And there are things we can do. Those of us who live in democracies can influence outcomes a little. It may be too early for political action, but perhaps is not too early for writing and reflecting, and for coming up with theories about how the near future may look like, and sharing them with the world. If things turn really dire, there is always that turbid matter our advanced culture forbids us to reach out for: violence and revolutions. In other words, if it is the AIs or us, be it because the AIs are outright evil or because our economic systems make them evil, then we can always choose “us” and resort to forceful or even violent corrections.
mocamoca 3y ago
I don't mean to show a lack of respect for parents and their good will. However, could we say that "you at least have to play to not lose" is a particularly selfish reason for having children? Here, "Playing" is making sure the parents will have caregivers, not that the children will live happy. If the current situation is not worrying enough to rule out having happy kids, what would be the threshold? (Not a rhetorical question)
- Vecr 3y ago
  > If the current situation is not worrying enough to rule out having happy kids, what would be the threshold? (Not a rhetorical question) There is no threshold. Yes, I know Yudkowsky's position, not even there. > Here, 'Playing' is making sure the parents will have caregivers, not that the children will live happy. Parents having caregivers hardly comes into it at all.
  - dsign 3y ago
    > Parents having caregivers hardly comes into it at all. For me, it does, an awful lot. Being a caregiver to my parents has implied a lot of existential suffering and emotional agony. Think about it: the people who raised you are going to die slowly and perhaps painfully and you are going to see it without being able to do anything. I feel I would be very cruel by giving that future to a child I love.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      That's either going to happen or it's not, but I don't think everyone being dead is an acceptable way to force it to be wrong.
AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
What is winning and what is losing? Yeah there are actions that persist our genetics but there's no rule saying that's what needs to happen, just that it's something that happens. If you widen out to society, yeah, there are other people who will come after us, maybe we can have purpose in helping those people to survive even if they're not our kids. Humans evolved as a collective, there are parts of our DNA that exist to help the group even if it means we ourselves don't have kids. Evolution is a much more complicated thing than just specifying exactly what genes -you- pass on.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > What is winning and what is losing? Yeah there are actions that persist our genetics but there's no rule saying that's what needs to happen, just that it's something that happens. All of us are descended from billions of years of ancestors (long before humans) that were motivated to reproduce. Those who didn't left none of their genes behind (other than ones they might have shared with relatives). That's exactly what "losing" means, in the evolutionary sense.
  - AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
    Not at all. Simple example: ants. Most of them don't reproduce, but they still work to pass on their genes. In the case of humans... Why do you think there has always been a part of society that seems predisposed to violence and nationalism. It's not beneficial to the individual to go get in fights, but if it keeps the group alive then it's advantageous. (Note, this is not a license to be a violent nationalist asshole, but this is the internet so...) Similarly, autism and ADHD. There are very real theories that those conditions were beneficial to early society even if they were detrimental to mating because it's helpful to have people around who are hyper focused and hyper unfocused. So yeah, helping pass on your relative's genes, however distant, is still part of the game.

by Vecr 3y ago

rbanffy 3y ago

I’m not a huge fan of CS Lewis but the quote at the end is very on point. Let’s continue to be human and do human things. Change will come as it always does.

Vecr 3y ago
It's okay I guess if you think you have no causal impact on if any of that happens, but otherwise you better be doing something to help, even if it would only work in a tiny part of probability space, instead of waiting to die.
- throwanem 3y ago
  Why waste time posting here that you could spend weaving mosquito nets, then? Surely this can't be a global maximum in utilon space.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    I'm talking about VNM utility, I'm not a utilitarian or a EA.
    - throwanem 3y ago
      VNM applied in the realm of ethics is definitionally utilitarian.
      - Vecr 3y ago
        > That your utility function may be off model from the most doctrinaire possible interpretation of the theory does not seem to me the same as saying this is not an example of a theory. Sure, I don't want to get into a definitional argument. However, any VNM utility function can be the exact opposite of anything you propose as good, just by inverting the comparison order. If you have numerical outcome scores that could be as easy as my score =: 0 - your score > (Did you mean to reply to your comment rather than mine?) It's a HN thing.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. Again I grant this varies from Bentham's definition, but Bentham has been dead a long time now. Modern utilitarianism has been defined by Singer, for better or for worse - mostly worse - and Singerism is what I describe. In any case, Bentham's version still bears the flaw; 'good' can stretch with sufficient cleverness to cover all the virtue or deontology in the world. > It's a HN thing. I doubt that; this and your prior comment are the second and third time I've seen it in eleven years of active participation here. Are you using some kind of extension or script to augment the UI? If so, I strongly suspect that is causing it.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      > VNM applied in the realm of ethics is definitionally utilitarian. I assume you are thinking deontological ethics, virtue ethics, etc vs utilitarianism, but non-benthamite utility functions exist. Actually, if they didn't I assume a lot of AI doomers would be less doomy, as quite a few of them are utilitarians.
      - throwanem 3y ago
        No, I'm thinking utilitarianism. I appreciate that the standard definition includes a term about "for the greatest number". But you're still defining an ethical utility function which you then seek to maximize. That your utility function may be off model from the most doctrinaire possible interpretation of the theory does not seem to me the same as saying this is not an example of the theory. The same could be said of effective altruism, which is anyway just the prosperity-gospel version of utilitarianism. That one should be doing utilitarianism badly does not mean one is not doing utilitarianism at all. (Did you mean to reply to your comment rather than mine?)
        Vecr 3y ago
        > Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. I think it's honest, as it really forces you to make a distinction between good (what should be) and real (what is). "Should" goes into the utility function, "is" goes into the world model. I'd honestly recommend giving it a shot if you have free time. > I doubt that; this and your prior comment are the second and third time I've seen it in eleven years of active participation here. It's the anti-flame war/spam thing kicking in. I'm manually responding to the "wrong post" but that's pretty much fine.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Oh, I see. If you click the timestamp on a comment, that view always has the reply form. Only in the thread view is the reply link hidden for the first few minutes after a comment is posted. I'm familiar with Hume. The is-ought distinction has value, but is orthogonal to utilitarianism, if not explicitly opposed.
- dsign 3y ago
  Just this. And there are things we can do. Those of us who live in democracies can influence outcomes a little. It may be too early for political action, but perhaps is not too early for writing and reflecting, and for coming up with theories about how the near future may look like, and sharing them with the world. If things turn really dire, there is always that turbid matter our advanced culture forbids us to reach out for: violence and revolutions. In other words, if it is the AIs or us, be it because the AIs are outright evil or because our economic systems make them evil, then we can always choose “us” and resort to forceful or even violent corrections.

mocamoca 3y ago

I don't mean to show a lack of respect for parents and their good will. However, could we say that "you at least have to play to not lose" is a particularly selfish reason for having children? Here, "Playing" is making sure the parents will have caregivers, not that the children will live happy. If the current situation is not worrying enough to rule out having happy kids, what would be the threshold? (Not a rhetorical question)

Vecr 3y ago
> If the current situation is not worrying enough to rule out having happy kids, what would be the threshold? (Not a rhetorical question) There is no threshold. Yes, I know Yudkowsky's position, not even there. > Here, 'Playing' is making sure the parents will have caregivers, not that the children will live happy. Parents having caregivers hardly comes into it at all.
- dsign 3y ago
  > Parents having caregivers hardly comes into it at all. For me, it does, an awful lot. Being a caregiver to my parents has implied a lot of existential suffering and emotional agony. Think about it: the people who raised you are going to die slowly and perhaps painfully and you are going to see it without being able to do anything. I feel I would be very cruel by giving that future to a child I love.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    That's either going to happen or it's not, but I don't think everyone being dead is an acceptable way to force it to be wrong.

AnarchismIsCool 3y ago

What is winning and what is losing? Yeah there are actions that persist our genetics but there's no rule saying that's what needs to happen, just that it's something that happens. If you widen out to society, yeah, there are other people who will come after us, maybe we can have purpose in helping those people to survive even if they're not our kids. Humans evolved as a collective, there are parts of our DNA that exist to help the group even if it means we ourselves don't have kids. Evolution is a much more complicated thing than just specifying exactly what genes -you- pass on.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> What is winning and what is losing? Yeah there are actions that persist our genetics but there's no rule saying that's what needs to happen, just that it's something that happens. All of us are descended from billions of years of ancestors (long before humans) that were motivated to reproduce. Those who didn't left none of their genes behind (other than ones they might have shared with relatives). That's exactly what "losing" means, in the evolutionary sense.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
  Not at all. Simple example: ants. Most of them don't reproduce, but they still work to pass on their genes. In the case of humans... Why do you think there has always been a part of society that seems predisposed to violence and nationalism. It's not beneficial to the individual to go get in fights, but if it keeps the group alive then it's advantageous. (Note, this is not a license to be a violent nationalist asshole, but this is the internet so...) Similarly, autism and ADHD. There are very real theories that those conditions were beneficial to early society even if they were detrimental to mating because it's helpful to have people around who are hyper focused and hyper unfocused. So yeah, helping pass on your relative's genes, however distant, is still part of the game.