“Other planets in space and time, other Everett branches, would generate the same pebble.”
But not very likely! At least some of them not. What tells you something abut the Multiverse, if you buy it’s idea.
“Other planets in space and time, other Everett branches, would generate the same pebble.”
But not very likely! At least some of them not. What tells you something abut the Multiverse, if you buy it’s idea.
“I still don’t get how Eliezer and (according to Eliezer) Robin think that life (or Life, whatever, a capital letter won’t do the trick) is going to shape the stars and (if I understand correctly) the whole Universe.”
I don’t get, how you can’t get it. Really. It’s a matter of a degree, how far away we make some changes. I trust, you wouldn’t even if you could. But I would turn Jupiter and everything beyond to some useware, only if I could.
So “I” would remain, you would not. How difficult is to understand this?
Thomas
Yes, that’s my point. We have traveled quite a long way, and there is no sign we couldn’t go further with some luck. Producing useware from jupiters and stars is something one would expect. At least from a minority of civilizations, had been any of them around. But apparently, there is only a big void.
OTOH, they have still a lot of time to evolve to at least our current level from nothing, before we get there. That holds for the majority of the Universe. The Galaxy is another story, it’s too small for this scenario. But the Universe as a whole is mostly more than 5 billion light years away. Our tomorrow Singularity could still be one of many, far apart. The SAI should ponder this immediately. What to do, not to be in war with others, coming from every space direction? The Ethics’ space will be narrowed by this fact or guess.
And there may be another—maybe several of them—optimizers already. Sprung out of brains, of course. One may be a humble “mechanical solution searcher software”. Or something of this kind. Unexpected, but quite real and powerful.
Turing machine with a random number generator is already something more complex than just a TM.
Some abstractions are not that useful, after all. TM+RNG may be a better try.
“So I stick to qualitative predictions. “AI go FOOM”.”
Even if it is wrong—I think it is correct—it is the most important thing to consider.
I don’t buy the idea of Everet branching from at least this reason:
Let say, that in an experiment, a parallel Universe is created with the probability 1⁄2. In some Universes this experiment will be continued and parallel Universes will be created, in some will not.
Question. Is the parallel Universe of the parallel Universe our parallel Universe? Sometimes not.
So, we have the parallel and the semi-parallel worlds. And so on.
I quote:
“The young revolutionary’s belief is honest. There will be no betraying catch in his throat, as he explains why the tribe is doomed at the hands of the old and corrupt, unless he is given power to set things right. Not even subconsciously does he think, “And then, once I obtain power, I will strangely begin to resemble that old corrupt guard, abusing my power to increase my inclusive genetic fitness.”
The Orgasmimum may be the least scaring scenario. If that’s so, we might get it.
How great is this story?
The encounter with aliens was enlightening for those humans. Just reading this fiction, is still very enlightening for humans!
That’s the greatness of it.
The point is, that the Normal Ending is the most probable one.
Russell Wallace,
The good fable is something different. The most probable outcome (specially here) is another story. The non discussed advantages Superhappies have accumulated so far and are accumulated also at this very moment—are crucial.
Strange this siding with Babyeaters here … strange.
anyone else find it ironic that this blog has measures in place to prevent robots from posting comments?
Only for those stupid robots who can’t read a few funny written letters. Babyeaters level robots can’t talk here.
SH are too advanced to be tricked by humans this way. Several hundred years difference wouldn’t allow the underdog to “win”.
Both boxes might be transparent. In this case, you would see the money in both boxes only if you are rational enough to understand, that you have to pick just B.
Wouldn’t that be an irrational move? Not all! You have to understand that to be rational.
You have to understand this twist, to be able to call yourself rational, by my book.
You understood the twist, as I see.
The site of ours, may be in context here.
It is also quite possible that the Higgs boson will come out and it will be utterly useless, as most of those particles are. You can’t do a thing with them and they don’t tell you very much. Of course, the euphoria will be massive.
Still, most likely, nothing will be to see.
Both theories are equally good. Both are correct. There is no way to choose one, except to make another experiment and see which theory—if any (still might be both well or both broken) - will prevail.
Thomas