Good point! Yes, I think incentives are definitely important, and that the best way to fit them into this framework is within the âbenevolenceâ component. Hereâs how Iâd now explain why incentives should be part of benevolence:
âWe write in the post:
By benevolence, we essentially mean how well an actorâs moral beliefs or values align with the goal of improving the expected value of the long-term future. For example, an actor is more âbenevolentâ if they value altruism in addition to self-interest, or if they value future people in addition to presently living people.
Acting based on incentives implies that the actor effectively has the âmoralâ belief or value that they should act based on incentives. This is similar to prioritising self-interest over altruism, to the extent that pursuing incentives benefits oneself and may sometimes be at odds with benefitting others (or the long-term future).â
But to be honest, I feel like itâs not a super clean fit. It might be better if this framework made it more explicit and intuitive how the first factor captures things like what the actorâs incentives are, and to what extent the actor is influenced by those incentives (vs their more clearly âmoralâ beliefs and values).
In earlier drafts, Iâd written:
We use the term benevolence to refer to the quality of actorsâ high-level values or goals, evaluated from the perspective of existential risk reduction. Thus, this roughly relates to things like terminal values, preferences, ethics, and moral beliefs.
Perhaps that phrasing wouldâve made it more clear that benevolence can include incentives.
Also, your comment, or the process of replying to it, makes me realise that I havenât made it entirely clear where something like âwillpowerâ fits into this framework. I think Iâd put willpower under âpowerâ, as it helps an actor execute its plans. But willpower could also arguably fit under âbenevolenceâ, as an actorâs willpower will change what moral beliefs or values they in effect act as though they have.
I think thatâs a good example of a way that BIP overlap. Also, intelligence and power clearly change benevolence by changing incentives or view of life or capability of making an impact. (Say, economic growth has made people less violent)
Indeed. One thing thatâs true is that many actions will âdirectlyâ affect more than just one of the three factors, and another thing (which is what you mention) is that effects on one factor may often then have second-order effects on one or both of the other factors.
Good point! Yes, I think incentives are definitely important, and that the best way to fit them into this framework is within the âbenevolenceâ component. Hereâs how Iâd now explain why incentives should be part of benevolence:
âWe write in the post:
Acting based on incentives implies that the actor effectively has the âmoralâ belief or value that they should act based on incentives. This is similar to prioritising self-interest over altruism, to the extent that pursuing incentives benefits oneself and may sometimes be at odds with benefitting others (or the long-term future).â
But to be honest, I feel like itâs not a super clean fit. It might be better if this framework made it more explicit and intuitive how the first factor captures things like what the actorâs incentives are, and to what extent the actor is influenced by those incentives (vs their more clearly âmoralâ beliefs and values).
In earlier drafts, Iâd written:
Perhaps that phrasing wouldâve made it more clear that benevolence can include incentives.
Also, your comment, or the process of replying to it, makes me realise that I havenât made it entirely clear where something like âwillpowerâ fits into this framework. I think Iâd put willpower under âpowerâ, as it helps an actor execute its plans. But willpower could also arguably fit under âbenevolenceâ, as an actorâs willpower will change what moral beliefs or values they in effect act as though they have.
I think thatâs a good example of a way that BIP overlap. Also, intelligence and power clearly change benevolence by changing incentives or view of life or capability of making an impact. (Say, economic growth has made people less violent)
Indeed. One thing thatâs true is that many actions will âdirectlyâ affect more than just one of the three factors, and another thing (which is what you mention) is that effects on one factor may often then have second-order effects on one or both of the other factors.