Vakus Drake
37
30
Vakus Drake has not written any posts yet.
Vakus Drake has not written any posts yet.
That post doesn't exist anymore.
There's another potential position here you didn't mention: That AI only seems superficially moral to us, but that if it had more intelligence and power but the same morals an AGI like it would take actions that we view as obviously abhorrent. Meaning we ought to view it as essentially evil, but simply too dumb to realize it or act upon it (though some research makes even certain current models look pretty bad).
Thus if you view suffering as having a moral significance depending on the potential moral behavior of the agent, then you may not care. For the same reason most people don't necessarily feel suffering is bad (or even think it's... (read more)
I think this view starts with a faulty concept of consciousness which then necessarily leads to one disregarding continuity of self as being importance.
Namely you assume that things like personality and memory are a part of consciousness, and that therefore those things would have any ability to predict your future anticipated experience. This is problematic, particularly once you've deconstructed the idea that you have a unified self: Since it presumes some coherent unified self which is defined by whatever bundle of cognitive faculties, personality and memory you care about.
In contrast what I think is the far more coherent view is that consciousness is just the particular processes running in your mind which... (read more)
... (read more)Preferential gaps, by contrast, are insensitive to some sweetenings and sourings. Consider another example. A is a lottery that gives the agent a Fabergé egg for sure. B is a lottery that returns to the agent their long-lost wedding album. The agent does not strictly prefer A to B and does not strictly prefer B to A. How do we determine whether the agent is indifferent or whether they have a preferential gap? Again, we sweeten one of the lotteries. A+ is a lottery that gives the agent a Fabergé egg plus a dollar-bill for sure. In this case, the agent might not strictly prefer A+ to B. That extra dollar-bill might not suffice to break the tie. If that is so,
The issue with running people at different speeds as a solution is that the eudaimonic rate for people to increase their intelligence will vary, however this creates an incentive for people to self modify in a sort of race to the bottom. It's also problematic because people are liable to care quite a lot how fast they're running, so this forces society to splinter in terms of who can interact with each other.
Also at a fundamental level it seems like what you're reaching for is still going to end up being a Federation style caste system no matter what: What I mean by that is that there will always be some people... (read more)
This is why the only viable solution to giving existing people a sense of purpose/meaning is to create a bunch of new people who aren't as driven by status. That way every existing person can be as impressive within their particularly community as they want: Since most of the other people living with them have little drive for status and don't care about getting fame or needing to feel like they're exceptional/special in some way.
Then combine that with simulations DM'd by superintelligences and you really should be able to give every person the feeling of being maximally fulfilled in their life.
Since the admiration of the people in the simulation who see you... (read more)
I think the proposed solution presented here is suboptimal and would lead to a race to the bottom, or alternatively lead to most people being excluded from the potential to ever do anything that they get to feel matters (and I think a much better solution exists):
If people can enhance themselves then it becomes impossible to earn any real status except via luck. Essentially it's like a modified version of that Syndrome quote "When everyone is exceptional and talented, then no one will be".
Alternatively if you restrict people's ability to self modify then you just get a de-facto caste system (like the Star Trek Federation), where only the people who already won... (read 555 more words →)
This is one of those areas where I think the AI alignment frame can do a lot to clear up underlying confusion. Which I suspect stems from you not taking the thought experiment far enough for you to no longer be willing to bite the bullet. Since it encourages AI aligned this way to either:
I think the whole point of a guardian angel AI only really makes sense if it isn't an offshoot of the central AGI. After all if you trusted the singleton enough to want a guardian angel AI, then you will want it to be as independent from the singleton as is allowed. Whereas if you do trust the singleton AI (because say you grew up after the singularity) then I don't really see the point of a guardian angel AI.
>I think there would be levels, and most people would want to stay at a pretty normal level and would move to more extreme levels slowly before deciding on some place to stay.
I... (read more)
There's something rather massive that you're missing here: If you have enough freedom to create personalized environments then the bigger issue is what some fraction of people will choose to do with that kind of power. Since this is way more than you can get from an experience machine.
The best version of this I can think of entails everyone getting personalized AGI able to act as perfect DM's for simulated adventures. Since you need someone to act out the roles of the NPC's, particularly the villains. This way people can play out adventures where they get to be the hero and maximally fulfill all their psychological instincts for purpose, in addition to... (read more)