I wonder to what extent MIRI’s Functional Decision Theory’s categorical imperative relates to this. In FDT, there is no such thing as an independent agent, it’s essentially an acknowledgement that we can’t escape the bonds, the entrainment/entanglement, the synchronies, created by the universality of the mathematics of decisionmaking. To practice FDT, you have to be aware that your decisions will be mirrored by others, EG, you don’t defect against other FDT agents in prisoner’s dilemmas, because you’re aware that you’ll both tend to make the same decision, and defecting stops making sense when that’s the case.
That does seem to be a compatible interpretation of the phrasing “I am because we are” (in the sense of “I am (a certain way) because we (our agent-class) are (a certain way)”). I’d be interested to know if that reading works in the original language too, it wouldn’t be surprising, FDT-synchrony isn’t a new or original idea, it’s a formalization of a recurring one. Kant’s categorical imperative was an attempt to grasp the same thing, and Reflectivism, culture, norms and contracts (and open source game theory) are kind of more embedded (less abstract) implementations of it.
Interesting post! Do you have any thoughts on how greater incorporation of Ubuntu ethics might affect cause prioritisation in EA, or the types of interventions EA focuses on within its prioritised causes?
“Ubuntu stresses empathy and compassion, enabling people to sympathize with the difficulties and goals of others.” I really like this thread throughout the post. When I wear my EA hat I often start thinking very individualistically like “how can I optimize my impact” rather than thinking collectively. I think I would be better off thinking from more of an Ubuntu perspective. Thank you!
I wonder to what extent MIRI’s Functional Decision Theory’s categorical imperative relates to this. In FDT, there is no such thing as an independent agent, it’s essentially an acknowledgement that we can’t escape the bonds, the entrainment/entanglement, the synchronies, created by the universality of the mathematics of decisionmaking.
To practice FDT, you have to be aware that your decisions will be mirrored by others, EG, you don’t defect against other FDT agents in prisoner’s dilemmas, because you’re aware that you’ll both tend to make the same decision, and defecting stops making sense when that’s the case.
That does seem to be a compatible interpretation of the phrasing “I am because we are” (in the sense of “I am (a certain way) because we (our agent-class) are (a certain way)”). I’d be interested to know if that reading works in the original language too, it wouldn’t be surprising, FDT-synchrony isn’t a new or original idea, it’s a formalization of a recurring one. Kant’s categorical imperative was an attempt to grasp the same thing, and Reflectivism, culture, norms and contracts (and open source game theory) are kind of more embedded (less abstract) implementations of it.
Interesting post! Do you have any thoughts on how greater incorporation of Ubuntu ethics might affect cause prioritisation in EA, or the types of interventions EA focuses on within its prioritised causes?
Wow, what a brilliant post! Thank you for sharing such relevant insights. This really hits home for us and adds so much value to the discussion.
“Ubuntu stresses empathy and compassion, enabling people to sympathize with the difficulties and goals of others.” I really like this thread throughout the post. When I wear my EA hat I often start thinking very individualistically like “how can I optimize my impact” rather than thinking collectively. I think I would be better off thinking from more of an Ubuntu perspective. Thank you!