Ruralvisitor83

Wiki Contributions

Comments

After thinking long and hard it seems like the argument about continued consciousness is kind of undeniable and a good disassociation technique. I think physics is the best explanation we have for things and that it's pretty clear consciousness is a physical phenomenon and nothing magical. Although a universe filled with infinite suffering isn't any less horific, knowing that I won't experience it helps me disassociate from that (basically impossible) scenario.

I don't quite see how it's bounded. If there's 50% on option 1 which is eternal happiness or suffering and 50% on option 2 which is a lifetime of happiness/suffering, how is option 1 bounded? (although entropy is present in everything complex and infinity isn't supported by physics, let's just say it is for the sake of the argument)

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

Right, while I actually agree with this, it's not (yet) provable by the scientific method or something so you're just talking about preferences. Either way my point was very much about an actual scenario, let's say if the superrich or powerful get a hold of an intelligence twice as high as ours (which is a flawed way of thinking and very unlikely to happen for all sorts of reasons, I think the rollout of cognitive improvements beginning in maybe 15-30 years will happen gradually and en masse) would there be an incentive or motivation to become dictators? Or would they want to share the wealth. I do think they would choose sharing the wealth and brain improvements everytime.

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

And I think the orthogonality thesis on biological subjects just doesn't work out. As long as you feel pain and joy, you know pain is bad and joy is good, that's encoded in our biology. Now you might say 'hey that's not a fact' like one in physics is true. But a valid response is: let anyone who denies pain be whipped for as long as they deny pain is bad. I do think as long as you still experience it yourself, you know pain is bad and pleasure is good, I think a lot of psychos and sadists also know their behaviour is bad cause they wouldn't want it done on themselves (although they might have a hard time admitting it). The 'orthogonality thesis' works on a hypothetical AGI since it doesn't feel pain or joy, but we do, it's encoded in our biology and we experience both every minute. Do people against the orthogonality thesis have to defend a stance of 'pain is an inherently bad universal thing and this is encoded in the nature of reality' or something? Cause that's just an unwinnable argument, n'either do I think this. But does any subject/ person that experiences it think it's inherently bad? I do, and the proof is that no biological creature could ever deny it.

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

So I guess I can rephrase my title to: A link between altruism and intelligence as long as there is a chance higher than 0% the mistreatment of others could backfire.

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

A psychopath can restrain themself if there's a reason

That's exactly what I mean. The reason in this case is a comprehension of sustained reward. A monkey doesn't sustained reward. If you gave it a peanut, but tell it if it waits for 5 minutes he can have 10 peanuts, he wouldn't understand and just eat the peanut. With intelligence a greater understanding of potential reward comes and we're less easily giving in to sexual, sadistic and other impulses. This can be seen through biology like I mentioned, we're more in control of our biological drives than any other creature. Now what I obviously didn't say is that intelligence magically makes someone non-evil or non-psychopathic, it's just that why would a psychopath in a sort of singularity scenario who is like a super Einstein risk getting incriminated for if he has a true understanding (way better than any of us) of what a successful singularity could bring (Kurzweilian scenarios). I mean the psychopath or sadist would just realise through enhanced reason (like they probably already do) that their behaviour is inherently wrong even though they enjoy it, and edit their brain so they don't want it anymore. I think the flaw the 'orthogonality thesis' has is that it assumes people (or AI) become non-evil through extra intelligence, they just become more altruistic.

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

Well I think it really does and that's what the study I link says. Let's say a sadist enjoys torturing others. If (through the boosted intelligence) he truly understood the potential a successful singularity and AI revolution could bring with it, why would he risk screwing up the singularity going well or risk incriminating himself if he could also know he can get 100 times the pleasure through other means than torture will give him? Isn't this a very obvious reason why altruism and intelligence are linked? He might still be evil, but with sufficient intelligence (a super Einstein like I described), the intelligence surely overarches your sadistic, sexual etc. impulses by logic since you know you can later get 1000x the impulses through other means.

What is the link between altruism and intelligence?

I don't think that's what I meant, isn't the orthogonality thesis about AI only? Like if we have a superintelligent AI that there's no reason its morals will be good unless we instruct it to do so, I'm talking about you and me. If our brains got a huge boost and we'd all become twice as smart as Einstein was, will the people that are psychopaths now stop being psychopaths then