Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox

Date: Sat Apr 21 2007 - 13:34:20 MDT

I'm not sure if "machine rebellion" is a workable concept here. If we are
talking about a civilization able to build whole subrealities at a whim, we are
already talking non-biological, uplifted sentience. Why would they make these
(I assume lesser) guardian entities with the capacity to rebel, or even to want
to rebel? Leave them with limited intelligence, perhaps a basic
compulsion-program to ensure that they concentrate solely on defense and
resource harvesting.
Your other point - "bumping up against" other civilizations - seems like a more
likely source of problems.

Quoting Dagon Gmail <>:

> The implication would be, the galactic disk would be seeded with a steadily
> growing number of "bombs",
> i.e. extremely defensive automated civilizations solely dedicated to keeping
> intact the minds of its original
> creators. Just one of these needs to experience a machine rebellion and the
> precarious balance is lost. A
> machine rebellion may very well not have the sentimental attachment to the
> native dream-scape. Machine
> civilizations could very well be staunchly objectivist, dedicated to what it
> regards as materialist expansion. Any
> such rebellion would run into the (alleged) multitudes of "dreaming" or
> "virtuamorph" civilizations around.
> And we are talking big timeframes here. If the statistical analysis has any
> meaning, virtuamorph civilizations
> shouldn't be a de facto dying process; for a dreaming civilization to have
> any other meaning than a slow
> abortion they have to last millions of years; millions of years means a lot
> of galactic shuffling in terms of
> stellar trejacteories. There would be many occasions of stars with
> "dreamers" drifting into proximity, giving rise to
> paranoid, highly protectionist impulses. After all, if all that dreaming is
> worth anything in subjective terms the
> civilization doing it would fight realworld battles to defend it, and not
> just dream about it in metaphorical terms
> of +5 vorpal swords.
> Unless the mindscapes have a way of closing off access to reality, i.e. they
> materially escape this universe.
> But then we introduce new unknows and arbitrary explanations.
> Maybe it's simply easier for civilizations to maintain their consciousness
> > in worlds of their own creation rather than expend energy and time in this
> > one which is outside of their complete control. It would seem to me that
> > being able to create a paradise of information and experience from the
> > substrate of this world would be a better existence than existing in this
> > world as is. Once to this stage, maybe to other civilizations simply do
> not
> > want to be bothered by lesser beings in this reality who might upset the
> > balance and control they desire. One would only need to be able to
> generate
> > the prime number sequence in order to create an infinite order of
> > probability densities with the next higher prime as the next iterative seed
> > value. In this way, one could mimic true randomness. A civilization could
> > at both times experience truly unique experiences yet have complete control
> > over their reality. The reality they experience would ultimately be
> limited
> > by the available energy in this reality but hypothetically, they could
> > manipulate time in such a way that one second here would be a million years
> > in their experienced reality. Ultimately, their fate would be dependent
> > upon the goings on in this universe, but they could develop machines to
> > gather energy and other resources to maintain their minds in the
> > sub-realities.
> >
> > They would need to build machines incapable of communicating or avoid
> > communicating with minds in this reality while they experience a completely
> > unique reality of their own choosing through technology. The machines in
> > this time and space are drones programmed to protect the mind(s) living
> > within the created world(s). You could go so far as to model this entire
> > existence where each individual mind shapes vis own reality which is
> > protected by drones in the higher reality with the ability to transfer
> one's
> > mind between realities as one sees fit or keep others out as one sees fit.
> > Universes could be born by the integration and random sharing of minds
> > thereby generating more unique child realities.
> >
> > The ultimate liberty would be to give each person vis own ideaspace with
> > which to construct their own reality and experience it as they see fit.
> >
> > It would be really cool to be to the level of existence as a universal
> > mind integrating with other universal minds creating completely new
> > universes.
> >
> > Why would you want to exchange this kind of ability for the lesser
> > existence of an entropic reality?
> >
> > *Stathis Papaioannou <>* wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/20/07, Gordon Worley < > wrote:
> >
> > The theory of Friendly AI is fully developed and leads to the
> > > creation of a Friendly AI path to Singularity first (after all, we
> > > may create something that isn't a Friendly AI but that will figure
> > > out how to create a Friendly AI). However, when this path is
> > > enacted, what are the chances that something will cause an
> > > existential disaster? Although I suspect it would be less than the
> > > chances of a non-Friendly AI path to Singularity, how much less? Is
> > > it a large enough difference to warrant the extra time, money, and
> > > effort required for Friendly AI?
> >
> >
> > Non-friendly AI might be more likely a cause an existential disaster from
> > our point of view, but from its own point of view, unencumbered by concerns
> > for anything other than its own well-being, wouldn't it be more rather than
> > less likely to survive and colonise the galaxy?
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> > Check out new cars at Yahoo!
> >
> >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT