05/11/2016

feel for data

"This isn't right. Imagine: we give them a loss function, without a utility function. They can't feel good; only less bad."
"It's the same with us, tho. What we call utility is just the absence of loss."
"I'm not sure that's true. Pride feels to be more than the absence of shame; love is more than absence of loneliness."
"There's a fairly big gap between your two examples. And it's hard to think clearly when strong pleasure or pain is implicated."
"Nevertheless, yours is the view requiring a mass redefinition of natural language to make two entities become one."
"I don't mind. Even if they're not identical, we can still capture most of all value by reducing harm."
"I don't see how you can know that."
"Obvs I don't know it infallibly, but anyway it can't hurt."
"You might be more ambitious than such moral hedging."
"Yes, as soon as possible: that is, much, much later. People are dying."
"They are, and not just the ones which have our shape. Maybe not just the damp ones. Is a reinforcement learner negligible?"
"So my actions tell me."
"Not very revisionary."
"There will soon be objective ways to tell if I'm speciesist or substratist. I'll keep researching."
"But you're against destructive
animal testing."
"We know the value of nonhuman experimentation, and it is often simply not enough for the known torture caused. At present, the potential value of
in silico vivisection is not so bounded."
"Hope you sleep tonight."
"I will."



No comments:

Post a Comment