3 ms·
The usual (e.g., https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/j4xo8e/the_universe_is_a_simulation_eggleston_destroys/ https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/commen
by jibal 9mo ago
The usual (e.g., https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/j4xo8e/the_universe_is_a_simulation_eggleston_destroys/ https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/j4xo8e/the_univ...) bunch of logical fallacies and unexamined assumptions from Bostrom.
Good philosophers focus on asking piercing questions, not on proposing policy.
> Would it not be wildly
irresponsible, [Yudkowsky and Soares] ask, to expose our entire species to even a 1-in-10 chance of annihilation?
Yes, if that number is anywhere near reality, of which there is considerable doubt.
> However, sound policy analysis must weigh potential benefits alongside the risks of any
emerging technology.
Must it? Or is this a deflection from concern about immense risk?
> One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies.
Everyone is going to die in any case, so this a red herring that misframes the issues.
> The rest of us are on course to follow within a few short decades. For many
individuals—such as the elderly and the gravely ill—the end is much closer. Part of the promise of
superintelligence is that it might fundamentally change this condition.
"might", if one accepts numerous dubious and poorly reasoned arguments. I don't.
> In particular, sufficiently advanced AI could remove or reduce many other
risks to our survival, both as individuals and as a civilization.
"could" ... but it won't; certainly not for me as an individual of advanced age, and almost certainly not for "civilization", whatever that means.
> Superintelligence would be able to enormously accelerate advances in biology and
medicine—devising cures for all diseases
There are numerous unstated assumptions here ... notably an assumption that all diseases are "curable", whatever exactly that means--the "cure" might require a brain transplant, for instance.
> and developing powerful anti-aging and rejuvenation
therapies to restore the weak and sick to full youthful vigor.
Again, this just assumes that such things are feasible, as if an ASI is a genie or a magic wand. Not everything that can be conceived of is technologically possible. It's like saying that with an ASI we could find the largest prime or solve the halting problem.
> These scenarios become realistic and imminent with
superintelligence guiding our science.
So he baselessly claims.
Sorry, but this is all apologetics, not an intellectually honest search for truth.
- slackr 9mo agoSpot on. Frankly, I’m unsure if it’s meant to be satire.
- golem14 8mo agoI think it is. I was wondering if it was Apr 1st reading it.
- logicchains 9mo agoThe author fundamentally doesn't understand complexity theory. So many processes in our universe are chaotic in the formal sense, requiring exponentially more compute to simulate a linear amount of extra time into the future. No amount of poorly defined "intelligence" can get around the fact that such things would take more compute than is available in the entire universe to simulate a few seconds ahead. An AI would hence need to make scientific experiments to obtain information just as humans do, many of which have an unavoidable time component (cannot be sped up), so there's no way an AI could just suddenly cure all diseases no matter how "intelligent" it was. These singularity types are basically medieval woo merchants trying to tell you convince you that it's possible to magically sort an arbitrary array in O(1) time.
- mrob 9mo agoConsider weather prediction. Fluid dynamics are chaotic, so that's a good example of something where no amount of compute is sufficient in the general case. An ASI, not being dumb, will of course immediately recognize this, and realize it is has to solve for the degenerate case. It therefore implements the much easier sub-goal of removing the atmosphere. Humans will naturally object to this if they find out, so it logically proceeds with the sub-sub-goal of killing all humans. What's the weather next month? Just a moment, releasing autonomous murder drone swarm...
- popcorncolonel 9mo agoIndividual particle interactions are not chaotic. Simulating them one timestep at a time would take linear time in the number of particles. They're only chaotic if you treat them in aggregate, which a superintelligence wouldn't do. It would be less lossy to get all the positions of the particles and figure out exactly what each one would do. Something has to compute the universe, since it is currently running...
- jibal 8mo agoA superintelligence isn't a genie or magic wand ... it can't make a computation that cannot be completed in a feasible amount of time run any faster. This is precisely what makes systems chaotic--they are fully deterministic but not predictable in a timeframe shorter than their execution. And no, nothing has to compute the universe ... e.g., the path of the Earth through space can be computed, but it will follow that path as a consequence of the forces acting on it whether it is computed or not.
- maybelsyrup 9mo agoAlso the Epstein stuff