Not everyone wants to kill with the intent of affecting the behavior of the punished, which in this case would be canceling all future behaviors. Some might want to punish by killing because they feel that is the proper response to the crime of the punished. Even if the punisher somehow knows that the one they are erasing will never behave that way again. Such people see certain behaviors as a permanent stain on a person’s life record and they believe the only correct punishment is to end them.
>A punishment is when one agent (the punisher) imposes costs on another (the punished) in order to affect the punished's behavior.
If a person punishes another by subtracting the other’s life, this is not done to affect the other’s behavior.
And I certainly see a very great difference between humanity continuing forever, versus humanity continuing to Graham's Number and then halting
You can't use "humanity" and "Graham's Number" in the same sentence.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! U shitheads think you are doing something to me with your insect downvotes? Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! The only thing U did is prove to me that U all eat SHIT! Not a single one of U can leave a sensible comment here. The next person who downvotes me is gonna get their ass beat by a kangaroo!
The AI tells me that I believe something with 100% certainty, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. I ask it to explain, and I get: "ksjdflasj7543897502ijweofjoishjfoiow02u5".
I don't know if I'd believe this, but it would definitely be the strangest and scariest thing to hear.
Like I said, some people would punish by killing not to affect the behavior of the punished (neither to deter nor to incapacitate), but because they would see it as the morally right thing to do, given the crime.
Zack, you are mistaken about highlighting Nick’s sentence as “hitting the mark”.