3 ms·
...and the main flaw of this still remains: we don't know the probabilities of a very advanced civilization running a simulation because we can have no idea of
by nnq 14y ago
...and the main flaw of this still remains: we don't know the probabilities of a very advanced civilization running a simulation because we can have no idea of whether this would be interesting for them to do, we can't predict what would their goals and motivations be. Out great-great-...-great-grandchildren will not just be super-smart versions of us, they will have concepts and goals we cannot even imagine! A simulation of us, depressing as it may be to think it this way, would be just as interesting for them as an ant-farm to a little boy - he'd get bored of it quickly because he's as far away evolutionary speaking from ants as these super-iteligent beings would be from us, and that wouldn't make for a large number of ant-farms simply because ant-farms will be boring and useless...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- nilkn 14y agoDid you read the paper? It takes that all into account. This is one of its three possible conclusions, as stated in the abstract.
- nnq 14y agomy bad, I actually read it some time ago, after someone sent me a "summary" of the reasoning, omitting this variant, but somehow the "summary" was stuck in my head and not the actual paper. indeed, Nick Bostrom actually thought everything through, including this line of thought.