mrob

13 ms·

271.
by mrob 8mo ago
This is one reason I'd like to see a fully Open Source hardware+firmware optical drive. Probably best to start with CD-ROM, but DVD might also be possible. The optical and mechanical parts seem relatively simple, especially when you&#x
272.
by mrob 8mo ago
It's the exact opposite. The original is the original because it ran on the original hardware. The copy is created inferior because it did not. Intentionally creating inferior beings of equal moral weight is wrong.
273.
by mrob 8mo ago
One has a physical basis, the other is pure spiritualism. Accepting spiritualism makes meaningful debate impossible, so I am only engaging with the former.
274.
by mrob 8mo ago
That is anthropomorphism. Intelligence is orthogonal to human reasonableness.
275.
by mrob 8mo ago
Only if you deny the reality of consciousness being tied to a physical substrate.
276.
by mrob 8mo ago
The premise of the position is that it's theoretically possible to create a person with memories of being another person. I obviously don't deny that or there would be no argument to have. Your argument seems to be that it's
277.
by mrob 8mo ago
There is no symmetry. The original existed when the clone did not exist.
278.
by mrob 8mo ago
>Because if the clone didn't start off consenting to being cloned when the original did, it's necessarily the case that the brain cloning process was not accurate. This is false. The clone is necessarily a different person, bec
279.
by mrob 8mo ago
My whole argument assumes that the clones are equally deserving of ethical consideration.
280.
by mrob 8mo ago
>retroactively make cloning automatically unethical There's nothing retroactive about it. The clone is harmed merely by being brought into existence, because it's robbed of the possibility of having its own identity. The harm o
281.
by mrob 8mo ago
This entire HN discussion is proof that some people would not personally have a problem with being cloned, but that does not entitle them to create clones. The clone is not the same person. It will inevitably deviate from the original simpl
282.
by mrob 8mo ago
If a "cloned" consciousness has no memories, and a unique personality, and no awareness of any previous activity, how is it a clone? That's going well beyond merely glitchy. In that case the main concern would be the possibil
283.
by mrob 8mo ago
It obviously doesn't surprise me because I specifically mentioned babies.
284.
by mrob 8mo ago
The original only consents for itself. It doesn't matter if the copy is coerced into sharing the experience of giving that consent, it didn't actually consent. Unlike a baby, all its memories are known to a third party with the ma
285.
by mrob 8mo ago
The copy was brought into existence without its consent. This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience, and as a society we collectively agree that children do not have full human rights. IM
286.
by mrob 8mo ago
Crazy that people are downvoting this. Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Certainly it should be banned. It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possi
287.
by mrob 8mo ago
Because like with every AI system we've made so far, we followed the only method we know and trained it to maximize a number.
288.
by mrob 8mo ago
Consider 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
289.
by mrob 8mo ago
Not just bats. I'm pretty sure humans are already capable of extincting any species we want to, even cockroaches or microbes. It's a political problem not a technical one. I'm not even a superintelligence, and I've got a
290.
by mrob 8mo ago
Anybody who assumes that superintelligence will be "so stupid that it literally pursues these goals to the extinction of everything" is anthropomorphizing it. Seeing as all AGI models have vastly different internal structure to hu
291.
by mrob 8mo ago
I support the freedom to produce unconventional art. I'm just pointing out the empirical fact that if you produce a work of art that follows the conventions of a genre, people are going to judge it according to those genre conventions.
292.
by mrob 8mo ago
I'm of the opinion that if you want to make a satire, intending to make a satire isn't enough, you have to actually make a satire. Others might disagree. The famous Roland Barthes essay "The Death of the Author" is relev
293.
by mrob 8mo ago
You're ignoring genre conventions. Every soft scifi movie is nonsense if you look at it from the perspective of real-life physics. Sending a single rock via unspecified FTL to attack Earth makes as much sense as the human-piloted fight
294.
by mrob 8mo ago
>Choosing to go and exterminate the local population in response is not defense. The Mormons were not the United Citizen Federation, they were an independent group. The bugs indiscriminately attacked all humans in response. >extermina
295.
by mrob 8mo ago
I support reproductive freedom. I oppose slavery. My opposition to slavery is stronger than my support for reproductive freedom. When there's a conflict between the two, reproductive freedom has to be sacrificed. Anybody who didn'
296.
by mrob 8mo ago
>The bugs have no technology. The bugs are shown firing projectiles to orbit. This is a setting with FTL travel; it's clearly not hard sci-fi. By the standard narrative conventions of soft sci-fi action movies, the bugs are capable
297.
by mrob 8mo ago
The evidence is shown on screen. We see the asteroid fired at Earth. We see Buenos Aires destroyed. We see the bugs killing the humans. If you call this unreliable narration it becomes impossible to discuss any fiction at all, because once
298.
by mrob 8mo ago
He could have introduced a second level of narrative nesting with a single title card at the beginning. Something like "United Citizen Federation presents: Heroes of the Bug Wars" would have made it clear. Lacking evidence to the
299.
by mrob 8mo ago
The tone marks the difference between epistolary narration (which by convention may be unreliable) and omniscient narration (which by convention is always reliable). I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveyi
300.
by mrob 8mo ago
To differentiate between the potentially unreliable in-universe material and the conventional narrative of the rest. There's no on-screen evidence to justify a second level of nesting.

More ›