From: Dmitriy Myshkin (DMyshkin@n2bb.com)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 13:43:37 MST
I agree that I don't foresee ancestral simulations existing in any form
in a Friendly-based transhumanity; I also don't foresee ancestral
simulations being any sort necessity (one could argue desirability for
any number of possible motives) in said transhumanist future.
Thus, I disagree fully with point (3) which indicates the high
probability of life within a simulation.
To be more clear: while Friendly scenarios are one "singleton" outcome
supports the simulation stats, strictly speaking simulation (second
apparently out-of-scope for Eli's def. of Friendly. (I would argue that
is in some sense neccessarily a de novo or first-order simulation.)
even for loose defs of Friendly, it would seem that the majority of
outcomes are non-Friendly.
This isn't a particularly ominous thing, IMO --- it speaks to something
at odds between the current canonical definition of "Friendly" and the
survival imperatives of a transhumanist civilization. It's interesting
consider Tipler --- however "whacked" he may be --- and ask how one
reconstitute civilization in order to perpetually enable the required
needed to achieve effective immortality in a Tipler-esque universe.
Jeff Bone wrote:
> Nick Bostrom wrote:
> > Eliezer wrote:
> > >I can't say that I recall ancestral simulations playing any
> > >significant part in most transhumanist scenarios. Personally I
> > >thought it would be a horrible thing to do even if possible and
> > >permitted. A Friendly SI outcome does not allow for nonconsensual
> > >simulations, and most ancestral simulations would presumably fall
> > >that category.
> Perhaps the fact that the numbers favor simulation speaks to the
> a Friendly SI outcome.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT