giving up ~0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the lightcone is easily worth it on moral uncertainty grounds.
Agreed this seems prudent and plausible, but not so much so that I would feel confident that this would be the result of CEV ish stuff. Despite some of the technical hurdles mentioned involved with trying to meaningfully specify up front/value locking that we get to keep this solar system for us and the animals I feel like I could be convinced this is still the more likely path to end up in a good future for us (but not all sentient life throughout the lightcone).
But also, if the CEV of human values involves killing all humans, then doesn’t that kinda mean killing all humans is the correct thing to do?
yea but the correct thing (from a human CEV) to do isn’t equivalent to what is good for humans (and animals). I might be getting into button pushing semantics here.
Agreed this seems prudent and plausible, but not so much so that I would feel confident that this would be the result of CEV ish stuff. Despite some of the technical hurdles mentioned involved with trying to meaningfully specify up front/value locking that we get to keep this solar system for us and the animals I feel like I could be convinced this is still the more likely path to end up in a good future for us (but not all sentient life throughout the lightcone).
yea but the correct thing (from a human CEV) to do isn’t equivalent to what is good for humans (and animals). I might be getting into button pushing semantics here.