Did Vassar agree that you won the bet?

From https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.03079

Suppose some future technology enables the same consciously experienced human life to be repeated, identically or nearly so, N times, in series or in parallel. Is this roughly N times as valuable as enabling the same life once, because each life has value and values are additive? Or is it of roughly equal value as enabling the life once, because only one life is enabled, albeit in a physically unusual way? Does it matter whether the lives are contemporaneous or successive? We argue that these questions highlight a hitherto neglected facet of population ethics that may become relevant in the not necessarily far distant future.

[...]

the intuition behind replication futility is that, having written Alice’s life into the universe once, we add nothing to the total value of the universe (integrated over space and time) by doing so again. In particular, we add no value for Alice by repeating her emulation, even though each emulation of Alice has the sense of appreciating their life.

I remember reading something similar on this a while ago, possibly on this forum, but I can't find anything at the moment, does anyone remember any other papers/posts on the topic?

Cross-posted from the EA Forum

Have you reached out to https://tlon.team/ ? (I assume you did, just checking)

pokemon is a simple, railroady enough game that RNG can beat the game given enough time (and this has been done)

This is not true. It would take an absurd amount of time

• https://www.reddit.com/r/twitchplayspokemon/comments/1y7o7b/rng_plays_pokemon_is_a_joke_heres_why/
• https://www.youtube.com/@winningsequence

I think it's because 10+5 is very different from 60+30

For context, average US electricity consumption in 2022 was ~500GW. So these would be ~1% of all US electricity consumption (as an order of magnitude)

A grandmaster just lost a classical game (60''+30'') against Leela Knight Odds https://lichess.org/broadcast/leela-knight-odds-vs-gm-joel-benjamin/game-5/MbKHEbdb/7Tnz8uBj 

3 days ago an international master gave Leela "very slim chances" of winning a game, based on the results of a match played by a previous version of the engine

Here's a followup https://dynomight.net/more-chess/ apparently it depends a lot on the prompting

Conversely, if you don't see any success after 3n attempts you have a 95% confidence interval that 0 < p < 1/n (unless you have a strong prior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(statistics) 

Known as Rule of 72