Convergent evolution of values - Revision history

Issa at 17:50, 9 April 2021

2021-04-09T17:50:30Z

Issa at 17:48, 9 April 2021

2021-04-09T17:48:03Z

Issa at 03:07, 1 April 2020

2020-04-01T03:07:41Z

Issa at 08:57, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:57:47Z

Issa at 08:38, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:38:04Z

Issa at 08:31, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:31:59Z

Issa at 08:31, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:31:15Z

Issa at 08:30, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:30:35Z

Issa at 08:29, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:29:58Z

Issa at 08:28, 19 March 2020

2020-03-19T08:28:59Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 it seems notable that in "three worlds collide", all three civilizations were more or less "civilized" by our standards!
-truth-seeking seems like a convergent value for highly intelligent/advanced organisms.
+truth-seeking seems like a convergent value for highly intelligent/advanced organisms. however, it doesn't seem to work completely, e.g. see human civilization. it's unclear to me what this means in the limit of more advanced technology.
 how could convergence arise?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 9 April 2021
Line 77:		Line 77:

	* https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf		* https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf
		+
		+	[[Category:Philosophy]]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 wow, carl made the same point (about human "terminal" values): https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf
 ==External links==
 * https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 19 March 2020
Line 51:		Line 51:

	maybe you could argue that even in humans, the split isn't so clean as we would like to imagine! e.g. consider crony beliefs/social reality. these don't track reality very well, but they still produce actions that are adaptive.		maybe you could argue that even in humans, the split isn't so clean as we would like to imagine! e.g. consider crony beliefs/social reality. these don't track reality very well, but they still produce actions that are adaptive.
		+
		+	can we create "agents" which don't reason using probability and utility? i mean, there's already the [[probutility]] idea, but can we go further, and say, come up with an agent which uses ''three'' essential things in decision-making? or one thing? and where none of these things map at all to the ideas of probability/utility (i.e. they aren't just "rotated" versions of beliefs/utility in some vector space like in the jeffrey-bolker rotation post)?

	----		----

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 # causal processes that convergently produce the same ethical code
 # some sort of acausal law / moral code written deeply in logic somewhere (like [[The Hour I First Believed]])
 ----
@@ Line 49: / Line 51: @@
 maybe you could argue that even in humans, the split isn't so clean as we would like to imagine! e.g. consider crony beliefs/social reality. these don't track reality very well, but they still produce actions that are adaptive.
 ==External links==
 * https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 (warning: this page is especially cRaZy~. you have been warned!)
-[[multiplicative process]] => log-resource utility function (see [https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/gptXmhJxFiEwuPN98/meetup-notes-ole-peters-on-ergodicity/comment/AyrjdFhFCueq8CtdJ my comment])
+[[multiplicative process]] <math>\implies</math> log-resource utility function (see [https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/gptXmhJxFiEwuPN98/meetup-notes-ole-peters-on-ergodicity/comment/AyrjdFhFCueq8CtdJ my comment])
 i think there can be lots of similar, robust phenomena like this, for evolved organisms. so in terms of six plausible meta-ethical alternatives, there can be some features that are just "baked in" to many diverse kinds of organisms (like getting bored of a single kind of resource!).

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 19 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	(warning: this page is especially ~~crazy~~)	+	(warning: this page is especially cRaZy~. you have been warned!)

	multiplicative process => log-resource utility function (see [https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/gptXmhJxFiEwuPN98/meetup-notes-ole-peters-on-ergodicity/comment/AyrjdFhFCueq8CtdJ my comment])		multiplicative process => log-resource utility function (see [https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/gptXmhJxFiEwuPN98/meetup-notes-ole-peters-on-ergodicity/comment/AyrjdFhFCueq8CtdJ my comment])

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 how common is it to have a "physical world" where creatures are running around, like on earth/our physics? versus like, just raw [[observer-moment]]s being computed without reference to a physical world.
-are there any "simple" ways to produce intelligence that don't involve evolution? e.g. if we found some intelligent alien species, would they _have_ to have arose from evolutionary processes?
+are there any "simple" ways to produce intelligence that don't involve evolution? e.g. if we found some intelligent alien species, would they ''have'' to have arose from evolutionary processes?
 what alternatives are there to evolution? like, our universe is one made of simple rules, that barfed out organisms through trial and error. but could there be simple universes that somehow have certain organisms/observer-moments "baked in"? or some other simple optimization process that outputs complicated organisms/OMs? i guess one idea is that evolution produces the initial intelligences, but then these create a UFAI, so then the values that get implemented could be pretty "random".
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 relatedly, is there some reason that evolution made organisms that have a values vs beliefs (probabilities) split? why not a "stranger" (to humans) split, like the examples given in abram's jeffrey-bolker rotation post? after all, in the end, all that matters is how the system ''behaves'', not what it believes or what it values.
 ==External links==
 * https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Carl_Shulman_08-19-16_%28public%29.pdf