No posts to display.
>I see you've not bothered reading any of my replies and instead just made up your own version in your head.
I read all of your replies. What are you referring to? Also, this is uncharitable/insulting.
>Believe it or not there are a lot of people who'll do things like insist that that's not the ca...(read more)
>If you have to speak "carefully enough" then you're taking a big risk though you may luck out and get what you want, they're not safe.
If your argument is that unless a powerful being is extremely safe, then they're not extremely safe, this is true by definition. Obviously, if a genie sometimes do...(read more)
Examples of what? Of hypothetical intelligent minds? I feel like there are examples all over fiction; consider genies themselves, which often grant wishes in a dangerous way (but you can sometimes get around it by speaking carefully enough). Again, I agree that some genies are never safe and some ar...(read more)
I'm making 2 points:
1. His metaphor completely fails conceptually, because I'm perfectly capable of imagining genies that fall outside the three categories.
2. Perhaps the classification works in some other setting, such as AIs. However, the article never provided any arguments for this (or any a...(read more)
>At age 5 you could safely wish for "I wish for you to do what I should wish for" and at worst you'd be a little disappointed if what she came up with wasn't as fun as you'd have liked.
I would have gotten the wrong flavor of ice cream. It was strictly better to specify the flavor of ice cream I pr...(read more)
That sounds pretty similar to a Deist's God, which created the universe but does not interfere thereafter. Personally, I'd just shave it off with Ocam's razor.
Also, it seems a little absurd to try to infer things about our simulators, even supposing they exist. After all, their universe can be alm...(read more)
Does the simulation hypothesis have any predictive power? If so, what does it predict? Is there any way to falsify it?
Oh, yes, me too. I want to engage in one-shot PD games with *entirelyuseless* (as opposed to other people), because he or she will give me free utility if I sell myself right. I wouldn't want to play one-shot PDs against myself, in the same way that I wouldn't want to play chess against Kasparov.
Cool, so in conclusion, if we met in real life and played a one-shot PD, you'd (probably) cooperate and I'd defect. My strategy seems superior.
I never liked that article. It says "there are three types of genies", and then, rather than attempting to prove the claim or argue for it, it just provides an example of a genie for which no wish is safe. I mean, fine, I'm convinced that specific genie sucks. But there may well be other genies that...(read more)