AI 2040′s space supplement says “[are] there any mitigating factors, e.g., the experience being necessary for a strongly positive life[...]” which could be construed as referring to mindcrime trading off against prediction quality, among other things, though barely. Is there some agreement to avoid talking about mindcrime more directly? Normally you don’t have to, since the problem needs to be handled alongside malign entities and code that diverts your physical computer from the faithful execution of the abstract program/has physical side effects, e.g. rowhammer or using physical hardware subsections as improvised antennae (with at least one of these coupled to effected bitbanging). However, recently I’ve seen more people suggest that malign entities are some sort of hoax or math mistake, and I’ve heard rumors that Linux developers and hardware manufacturers know the countermeasures they design against unfaithful execution are not actually going to work, and knowingly don’t insert disclaimers everywhere they possibly can that the systems they produce can only run some subroutines, and in place of a clean error on the other subroutines, will perform some strange and potentially disastrous physical process instead.
(Note that these are pure subroutines, so additional sandboxing at a software level won’t do anything helpful. In theory, when a physical computer provides a pure subroutine with a fixed size memory buffer, it should never reject the subroutine as long as it is compatible with the buffer size provided, and would always faithfully execute it, potentially ending execution if power runs out before the subroutine is done. In practice, this is not the case.)
This general lack of care suggests that the public may need to be told about mindcrime directly. Otherwise nothing may be done in some cases, with other cases featuring silly “countermeasures” such as attempts to make the universe’s life easier by placing a “don’t add suffering” bit physically adjacent to the computers that run the decision theory’s outer loop, on the assumption that the universe really does care about human feelings.
AI 2040′s space supplement says “[are] there any mitigating factors, e.g., the experience being necessary for a strongly positive life[...]” which could be construed as referring to mindcrime trading off against prediction quality, among other things, though barely. Is there some agreement to avoid talking about mindcrime more directly? Normally you don’t have to, since the problem needs to be handled alongside malign entities and code that diverts your physical computer from the faithful execution of the abstract program/has physical side effects, e.g. rowhammer or using physical hardware subsections as improvised antennae (with at least one of these coupled to effected bitbanging). However, recently I’ve seen more people suggest that malign entities are some sort of hoax or math mistake, and I’ve heard rumors that Linux developers and hardware manufacturers know the countermeasures they design against unfaithful execution are not actually going to work, and knowingly don’t insert disclaimers everywhere they possibly can that the systems they produce can only run some subroutines, and in place of a clean error on the other subroutines, will perform some strange and potentially disastrous physical process instead.
(Note that these are pure subroutines, so additional sandboxing at a software level won’t do anything helpful. In theory, when a physical computer provides a pure subroutine with a fixed size memory buffer, it should never reject the subroutine as long as it is compatible with the buffer size provided, and would always faithfully execute it, potentially ending execution if power runs out before the subroutine is done. In practice, this is not the case.)
This general lack of care suggests that the public may need to be told about mindcrime directly. Otherwise nothing may be done in some cases, with other cases featuring silly “countermeasures” such as attempts to make the universe’s life easier by placing a “don’t add suffering” bit physically adjacent to the computers that run the decision theory’s outer loop, on the assumption that the universe really does care about human feelings.