Now somebody will steal the idea about bikeshops.
Coacher
Looking from utilitarian perspective, why don’t you consider the pleasure of eating meat here at all?
What about lifetime of HUGE pleasure of eating those delicious ribs? It seems you underestimate the pleasure, most people get of eating meat and overestimate the suffering of animals living in the farm (assuming they do have consciousness and their pain matters). Yes it seems extremely bad when compared to the way we humans live in the age of technology, but you should compare it to things like living in the wilderness with predator always on your back or not living at all.
If there IS alien super-inteligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?
Usually lack of evidence is evidence of lacking. But given their existence AND lack of evidence, I think probability of purposefully hiding (or at least being cautious about not showing off too much) is bigger than they just doing their thing and we just don’t see it even though we are looking really hard.
Or the way we try to keep isolated people isolated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples)
There is no difference in saying that there is no evidence and that there might be evidence, but we don’t have ability to detect it. Does god exist? Well maybe there is plenty evidence that it does, we just don’t have the ability to see it?
It seems you have some uncommon understanding of what word evidence means. Evidence is peace of information, not some physical thing.
Freud said its all because we want to f* our mothers.
This looks far fetched, but interesting strategy. Does it perhaps ever occur in nature? I.e. do any predators wait for their prey to become stronger/smarter, before luring them into the trap?
I guess they could, but to what end?
Why wait?
Compared to what alternative?
Then why would they even contact those few people?
Adding additional unneeded assumptions does not make hypothesis more likely. Just halting and not leaving any retarded children explains observations just as well if not better.
Can it predict something real/measurable?
For hypothesis to hold AI needs to:
Kill their creators efficiently.
Don’t spread
Do both these things every time any AI is created with near 100% success ratio.
Seems a lot of presumptions, with no good arguments for any of them?
On the other hand I don’t see, why AI that does spread can not be a great filter. Lets assume:
Every advanced civilization creates AI soon after creating radio.
Every AI spreads immediately (hard take off) and does that in near speed of light.
Every AI that reaches us, immediately kills us.
We have not seen any AI and we are still alive. That can only be explained by anthropic principle—every advanced civilization, that have at least bit more advanced neighbors is already dead. Every advanced civilization, that have at least bit less advanced neighbors, have not seen them, as they have not yet invented radio. This solves Fermi paradox and we can still hope to see some primitive life forms in other planets. (also AI may be approaching us at speed of light and will wipe us out any moment now)
Also, what if intelligent life is just a rare event? Like not rare enough to explain Fermi paradox by itself, but rare enough, that we could be considered among earliest and therefore surprisingly early in the history of universe? Given how long universe will last, we actually are quite early: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Many Worlds against Simulation?
I agree with criticism for 2 assumption. Although I have this intuition (based on possibly very wrong intuitions I have about QM), that argument still works even without it: Imagine same human runs the simulation. Then he goes to another table where he runs spin measuring experiment, with 50⁄50 probability of getting either up or down. After seeing the result, there is now two different consciousness of him, but there is still just one copy of simulated brains as they did not saw the result.
I quite understand the point author is making or a feeling that he has, which could be described by this one sentence: It is so easy for women to give sex and so important for men to get sex, that for women not to give it to men is just plain cruel. Everything is OK with this reasoning except one thing—assumption that it is easy for women to give sex. It is actually hard. Now this might not be obvious or intuitive from a man point of view, but you can get to this conclusion if you consider evolution. When evolution took place, to have sex with a man for a women, with high probability meant, to carry and give birth to the child of that man. By choosing to whom to have sex with, women actually determined the faith of her own genes in the long term, which is like the most important thing in evolution. Given that, it is reasonable to believe, that rejecting sex for women is as primal as the desire to have sex for men. Better analogy in this story would be that girl can lift the burning branch, but by doing so she burns and loses her arm and she only have 3-5 arms.