Less Wrong always makes me laugh. "Updatelessness" is basically just simple integrity: I will follow through on an agreement even when it benefits me to renege on the deal. People who lack integrity will "update:"
"I'll give you a loaf of bread for $5... OK, thank you for paying me $5 for this bread. Now that I have your money, I've updated on the situation and realize it makes sense to leave with the bread."
"Will you tutor me in mathematics for $30? ...OK thank you for tutoring me in mathematics today. Now that I know how to solve these problems, I've updated on the situation and realize that I won't need you again, so I don't think I'll pay."
There is a reason why evolution selected us to have integrity: we earn reputations. If every interaction we ever have is one-off, and can't be transmitted to others, then reputation doesn't exist, and short-sighted selfishness prevails.
I found it very illuminating about the Rationalist movement when Scott Alexander offered a prize in a survey based on prisoners' dilemma style competition: he found two people who were similar to pit together as prize winners; even similarity was not enough to encourage them to both cooperate. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/ The contest was anonymous, and occurred over one-shot, so fine, why not defect? Yet given that the winner was playing with a similar other, shouldn't basic altruistic tendencies have come to the rescue? Alas not. Low Honesty-Humility seems to be rather a problem for rationalists.
A holy book is updateless. Thus having committed an act of faith, your learning swivels around it like a pole dancer. The history of your choreography then looks like it has a structure, when really it has a frozen choice. Thus agency begets tradition/structuralism even, that removes it self, its soul, but the dance can continue without us. The robots works our flesh.
Less Wrong always makes me laugh. "Updatelessness" is basically just simple integrity: I will follow through on an agreement even when it benefits me to renege on the deal. People who lack integrity will "update:"
"I'll give you a loaf of bread for $5... OK, thank you for paying me $5 for this bread. Now that I have your money, I've updated on the situation and realize it makes sense to leave with the bread."
"Will you tutor me in mathematics for $30? ...OK thank you for tutoring me in mathematics today. Now that I know how to solve these problems, I've updated on the situation and realize that I won't need you again, so I don't think I'll pay."
There is a reason why evolution selected us to have integrity: we earn reputations. If every interaction we ever have is one-off, and can't be transmitted to others, then reputation doesn't exist, and short-sighted selfishness prevails.
I found it very illuminating about the Rationalist movement when Scott Alexander offered a prize in a survey based on prisoners' dilemma style competition: he found two people who were similar to pit together as prize winners; even similarity was not enough to encourage them to both cooperate. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/ The contest was anonymous, and occurred over one-shot, so fine, why not defect? Yet given that the winner was playing with a similar other, shouldn't basic altruistic tendencies have come to the rescue? Alas not. Low Honesty-Humility seems to be rather a problem for rationalists.
A holy book is updateless. Thus having committed an act of faith, your learning swivels around it like a pole dancer. The history of your choreography then looks like it has a structure, when really it has a frozen choice. Thus agency begets tradition/structuralism even, that removes it self, its soul, but the dance can continue without us. The robots works our flesh.