Upcoming stability of values

You'd probably have cause to pity the second and seriously worry about the first.

Not really, seems fine to me. As far as I know Duncan would self-describe as not having changed his values since he was twelve and I deeply admire him for that.

This invites the question - "why do we change our values" or "when is it good to change values". (While that seems to depend on the definition of "values", it seems worth engaging with this question, as is.)

What would you say to someone old who hadn't changed their values since they were five years old?

What would you say to anyone old who hadn't changed their values since they were eighteen years old?

Perhaps my answer depends on their age (or their values). If someone is 5 years old, and a day, how much change should we expect? 18 years and a day?

Maybe the key factor is information. While we don't expect every day to be (very) life changing, we expect a life changing day, to have an effect. In this sense value stability isn't valued. That is, as we acquire more information*, values should change (if the information is relevant, and different, or suggests change). So what we want might be more information (which is true). On the other hand, would you want to have a lot of life changing days, one after another? To some degree, stability and resources enable adjustments. Beliefs and habits may take time to change, and major life changes can be stressful. It is one thing to seek information, it would be another to live in an externally imposed (sonic) deluge of information.

It is worth noting both that 1) as time goes on, and specifically as one acquires more information, the evidence that should be needed to shift beliefs changes, namely increases, 2) No change means no growth. To have one's values frozen at the age of 100, and to still be the same at 200, seems a terrible thing.

(Meta-values might change less than lower level values, if there's less things that affect them, or that might be a result of meta-value change precipitating lower level value change, so delta L <= delta M because delta M -> delta L. How things might work in the other direction isn't as clear - would lots of value change cause change in the level above it?)

It is tricky to account for manipulation though. When is disseminating true information manipulative? (Cherry picking?)

Another factor might be something like exploration or 'preventing boredom'. Nutrition aside, while we might have a favorite food, eating too much of it, for too many days in a row may be unappealing (in advance, or in hindsight). Perhaps you have a desire to travel, to see new things; or to change in certain ways - a new skill you want to learn, a new habit to make, or new goals to achieve. (Still sounds like growth, though things we create which outlast us can also be about growing something other than ourselves.)

*No double counting, etc. On the other hand, if we've learned more/grown/changed, we might explore the new implications of "old" information. This isn't easy to model, outside of noticing recurring failure modes.

Conversely, when we start becoming able to fine-tune our own values, people will start to stabilise their own values, preventing value drift.

When I read this I assume you have in mind a point in the future when we're uploads, or have broad control over biology. Which makes me surprised to then read this part:

So we may end up with perpetual pre-adolescents, babies created with adult values, or a completely different maturation process, which didn't involve value changes.

Are you imagine a future where we both can engineer our bodies / minds, and also still go through (or at least start to go through) the normal human physical maturation process from baby to adult (complete with all the hormonal changes and growth spurts, etc.)?

This seems sort of incongruous (anachronistic?) to me.

Especially if human lifespan increases, there will be a strong case to keeping your values close, and not allowinga random walk until it hits an attractor.

In other words, be an attractor for your current values already. But at what age should one decide that here, at last, is where I am going to fix myself like a sea squirt on the landscape of values?

I think that it is possible a situation where meta-values are stable, but lower level values are changing. Meta-values are values about the ways how my values should change. For example, I prefer that they will not change against my will by some secret method of hypnosis. But I also prefer that they will change according their natural evolution, as I don't want to stuck in some repetitive behaviour.