Augmented Utilitarianism for AGI Safety

In the light of ongoing progresses of research on artificial intelligent systems exhibiting a steadily increasing problem-solving ability, the identification of practicable solutions to the value alignment problem in AGI Safety is becoming a matter of urgency. In this context, one preeminent challenge that has been addressed by multiple researchers is the adequate formulation of utility functions or equivalents reliably capturing human ethical conceptions. However, the specification of suitable utility functions harbors the risk of "perverse instantiation" for which no final consensus on responsible proactive countermeasures has been achieved so far. Amidst this background, we propose a novel socio-technological ethical framework denoted Augmented Utilitarianism which directly alleviates the perverse instantiation problem. We elaborate on how augmented by AI and more generally science and technology, it might allow a society to craft and update ethical utility functions while jointly undergoing a dynamical ethical enhancement. Further, we elucidate the need to consider embodied simulations in the design of utility functions for AGIs aligned with human values. Finally, we discuss future prospects regarding the usage of the presented scientifically grounded ethical framework and mention possible challenges

Time preference and savoring – how to exploit the Loewenstein contradiction

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate and analyze the contradiction between the model of time preference and the concept of savoring and thereupon outline product categories that particularly apply to each one of the preceding models. Both concepts are discussed and exemplified in order to depict the contradiction. Subsequently, the terms utilitarian and hedonic goods are introduced in order to outline useful patterns for the correct assignment of goods to each model. The definition of utilitarian goods is applied to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to show that they do particularly react to the model of time preference. Afterwards, existing knowledge about the concept of savoring is used in order to show the correlation between hedonic goods and the concept of savoring. Finally, the paper shows that companies can benefit from this categorization by either reacting to given distribution structures in terms of marketing or by identifying to which extent a certain product is perceived as utilitarian or hedonic good and correspondingly postpone or speed-up delivery

Time preference and savoring – how to exploit the Loewenstein contradiction

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate and analyze the contradiction between the model of time preference and the concept of savoring and thereupon outline product categories that particularly apply to each one of the preceding models. Both concepts are discussed and exemplified in order to depict the contradiction. Subsequently, the terms utilitarian and hedonic goods are introduced in order to outline useful patterns for the correct assignment of goods to each model. The definition of utilitarian goods is applied to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to show that they do particularly react to the model of time preference. Afterwards, existing knowledge about the concept of savoring is used in order to show the correlation between hedonic goods and the concept of savoring. Finally, the paper shows that companies can benefit from this categorization by either reacting to given distribution structures in terms of marketing or by identifying to which extent a certain product is perceived as utilitarian or hedonic good and correspondingly postpone or speed-up delivery

The Use of Online Panel Data in Management Research: A Review and Recommendations

Management scholars have long depended on convenience samples to conduct research involving human participants. However, the past decade has seen an emergence of a new convenience sample: online panels and online panel participants. The data these participants provide—online panel data (OPD)—has been embraced by many management scholars owing to the numerous benefits it provides over “traditional” convenience samples. Despite those advantages, OPD has not been warmly received by all. Currently, there is a divide in the field over the appropriateness of OPD in management scholarship. Our review takes aim at the divide with the goal of providing a common understanding of OPD and its utility and providing recommendations regarding when and how to use OPD and how and where to publish it. To accomplish these goals, we inventoried and reviewed OPD use across 13 management journals spanning 2006 to 2017. Our search resulted in 804 OPD-based studies across 439 articles. Notably, our search also identified 26 online panel platforms (“brokers”) used to connect researchers with online panel participants. Importantly, we offer specific guidance to authors, reviewers, and editors, having implications for both micro and macro management scholars

ANOMALIES IN INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE: THE DELAY AND INTERVAL EFFECTS.

Tesis doctoral en período de exposición públicaDoctorado en Ciencias Económicas, Empresariales y Jurídicas (RD99/11) (8906