What is the likelihood that you would experience death, only for an advanced AI to potentially resurrect you at some point thereafter?
Thomas
Karma: 776
The possibility of re-incarnations, or even the possibility of co-incarnations, would shift the odds, and the whole perspective on your question. Wouldn’t it?
AFAIK, Eliezer Yukowsky is one of Everett’s Multiple Worlds interpretation of QM, proponents. As such, he should combine the small, non-zero probability that everything is going to go well with AGI, and this MWI thing. So, there will be some branches where all is going to be well, even if the majority of them will be sterilized. Who cares for those! Thanks to Everett, all will look just fine for the survivors.
I see this as a contradiction in his belief system, not necessarily that he is wrong about AGI.
So, it does not remain in the atmosphere?
CO2 is rather quick in abandoning the atmosphere via dissolving in water. If that wasn’t so, the lakes in the mountains would be without life, but they aren’t. It’s CO2 that enables photosynthesis there, nothing else. The same CO2, which was not so long ago still in the air.
Dissolving CO2 in water is also a big thing in (Ant)Arctic oceans. A lot of life there is a witness of that.
Every cold raindrop has some CO2 captured.
So that story of “CO2 persisting in the atmosphere for centuries” is just wrong.
Upvoted for a fresh, non-forced by an ultra-utilitaristic POV. With this approach, p(Giga-doom) is also much lower, I guess.
If and only if a month has exactly two characters in its Roman numeral, then it has less than 31 days. No exception.
Save your knuckles!
Sure, but “alpine villages” or something alike, were called “astronomical waste” in the MIRI’s language from the old days. When the “fun space”, as they called it, was nearly infinite. Now they say, its volume is almost certainly zero.
I know, that “Right now no one knows how to maximize either paper clips …”. I know. But paper clips have been the official currency of these debates for almost 20 years now. Suddenly they aren’t, just because “right now no one knows how to”?
And then, you are telling me what is to be done first and how?
As I see, nobody is afraid of “alpine village life maximization”, as some are afraid of “paper-clip maximization”. Why is that? I wouldn’t mind very much, a rouge superintelligence which tiles the Universe with alpine villages. In the past discussions, that would be “astronomical waste”, now it’s not even in the cards anymore? We are doomed to die, and not to be “bored for billion of years in a nonoptimal scenario”. Interesting.
Okay, I didn’t know that. I find all his accounts quite interesting to read, and quite consistent with each other, too. Despite the fact, that they are from different times.
On topic, he was quite wrong in this particular Ukraina-Russia case. But who wasn’t?
FYI, Samo Burja’s username here is [removed by Ben Pace].
After nearly 300 years of not solving the so-called Fermat’s last problem, many were skeptical that’s even (humanely) possible. Some, publicly so. Especially some of those, who were themselves unable to find a solution, after years of trying.
Now, something even much more important is at stake. Namely, how to prevent AI to kill us all. The more important, but maybe also even (much?) easier problem, after all.
It’s not over yet.
A Neural Network, observing itself, instead of some other input, could be intriguing, if not perhaps even conscious? The input layer is smaller than all those hidden layers and synapses between them. But the input layer may hover across its own interior, just as it normally hovers over many cat pictures. Has anyone already tried it?
It was a slippery slope, with those Neural Networks. They were able to do more and more things, previously unimagined to be possible for them. It was a big surprise for everyone, how good they were at chess, 3600 or so Elo points. Leela Chess Zero invented some theoretical breakthroughs, soon to be exploited by more algorithmic, non-NN chess engines like Stockfish, for its position evaluation function. Even back then, I was baffled by people expecting that this propagation will soon stop, due to some unexpected effect, which never came. Not in chess, nor anywhere else.
It was indeed a matter of “when”, not of “maybe not” anymore. Yes, those first mighty AI’s were quite fake, they have no real clue. Except that this mattered less and less and it was less and less true. In an increasing number of fields.
It was only a matter of time when the first translators from the gibberish weight tables learned by NN’s, to exact algorithms will emerge. Something which people have previously done, stealing ideas from Leela, implementing them with rigor into algorithmic schemes of Stockfish—AI learned as well. Only better, of course.
By then, the slope was very slippery, indeed. I still can’t comprehend, how this wasn’t clear to everyone, even back then, less than 10 years ago.
It’s nothing wrong with the Googling method. Besides, one could search for <<pizzeria at the end of the world papa mamma>>. Should work now, too.
Maybe, next year’s solution to this problem will be “at least 13”.
You are right. It’s 12 or more different kinds of pizza. If it was 1 kind of pizza served, he could be certain, that one kind of pizza was at the majority (in that case at all minus one) orders. Since somebody could order a salad. But only one without pizza, to avoid equal orders by pizza kind.
Even if there were 11 different pizza kinds on the menu, Marco could be sure, there is the majority kind of pizza there. Since this Fraenkel conjecture has been proved up to 11 by now.
But for 12 or more, no one really knows yet. Probably it’s true, but who knows. Congratulation, you were rather quick. Despite the fact, the problem formulation looks vague to you.
After some time, a new math puzzle.
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2021/04/17/pizzeria-at-the-end-of-the-world/
I don’t see how “2.5 batteries” could mean “independence from fossil fuels”.
Or everyone?