User Profile

star11
description0
message208

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

Eliezer, "more AIs are in the hurting class than in the disassembling class" is a distinct claim from "more AIs are in the hurting class than in the successful class", which is the one I interpreted Yvain as attributing to you.

Nick, I'm now sitting here being inappropriately amused at the idea of Hal Finney as Dark Lord of the Matrix.

Eliezer, thanks for responding to that. I'm never sure how much to bring up this sort of morbid stuff. I agree as to what the question is.

<em>Also, steven points out for the benefit of al...(read more)

Does nobody want to address the "how do we know U(utopia) - U(oblivion) is of the same order of magnitude as U(oblivion) - U(dystopia)" argument? (I hesitate to bring this up in the context of cryonics, because it applies to a lot of other things and because people might be more than averagely emoti...(read more)

Vladimir, hell is only one bit away from heaven (minus sign in the utility function). I would hope though that any prospective heaven-instigators can find ways to somehow be intrinsically safe wrt this problem.

<em>There are negative possibilities (woken up in dystopia and not allowed to die) but they are exotic, not having equal probability weight to counterbalance the positive possibilities.</em>

Expected utility is the product of two things, probability and utility. Saying the probability is smaller is...(read more)

<em>The Superhappies can expand very quickly in principle, but it's not clear that they're doing so</em>

We (or "they" rather; I can't identify with your fanatically masochist humans) should have made that part of the deal, then. Also, exponential growth quickly swamps any reasonable probability pe...(read more)

Shutting up and multiplying suggests that we should neglect all effects except those on the exponentially more powerful species.

Peter, destroying Huygens isn't obviously the best way to defect, as in that scenario the Superhappies won't create art and humor or give us their tech.

If they're going to play the game of Chicken, then symbolically speaking the Confessor should perhaps stun himself to help commit the ship to sufficient insanity to go through with destroying the solar system.

Well... would you prefer a life entirely free of pain and sorrow, having sex all day long?

False dilemma.