Roko comments on Abnormal Cryonics - Less Wrong

56 Post author: Will_Newsome 26 May 2010 07:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (365)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment deleted 30 May 2010 01:44:18PM [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 30 May 2010 08:45:02PM *  0 points [-]

if I reflected sufficiently hard, I would place zero terminal value on my own life.

Not even close to zero, but less terminal value than you would assign to other things that an FAI could optimize for. I'm not sure how much extrapolated unity of mankind there would be on this regard. I suspect Eliezer or Anna would counter my 5% with a 95%, and I would Aumann to some extent, but I was giving my impression and not belief. (I think that this is better practice at the start of a 'debate': otherwise you might update on the wrong expected evidence. EDIT: To be more clear, I wouldn't want to update on Eliezer's evidence if it was some sort of generalization from fictional evidence from Brennan's world or something, but I would want to update if he had a strong argument that identity has proven to be extremely important to all of human affairs since the dawn of civilization, which is entirely plausible.)

Comment deleted 31 May 2010 01:41:43PM [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 31 May 2010 10:53:30PM 1 point [-]

I guess I'm saying the amount of atoms it takes to revive a cryo patient is vastly more wasteful than its weight in computronium. You're trading off one life for a huge amount of potential lives. A few people, like Alicorn if I understand her correctly, think that people who are already alive are worth a huge number of potential lives, but I don't quite understand that intuition. Is this a point of disagreement for us?

Comment deleted 31 May 2010 11:11:41PM [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 31 May 2010 11:30:12PM 0 points [-]

Gah, sorry, I keep leaving things out. I'm thinking about the actual physical finding out where cryo patients are, scanning their brains, repairing the damage, and then running them. Mike Blume had a good argument against this point: proportionally, the startup cost of scanning a brain is not much at all compared to the infinity of years of actually running the computation. This is where I should be doing the math... so I'm going to think about it more and try and figure things out. Another point is that an AGI could gain access to infinite computing power in finite time during which it could do everything, but I think I'm just confused about the nature of computations in a Tegmark multiverses here.

Comment deleted 31 May 2010 11:47:41PM *  [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 01 June 2010 12:06:48AM 0 points [-]

Yes, but this makes people flustered so I prefer not to bring it up as a possibility. I'm not sure if it was Bostrom or just generic SIAI thinking where I heard that an FAI might deconstruct us in order to go out into the universe, solve the problem of astronomical waste, and then run computations of us (or in this case generic transhumans) far in the future.

Comment deleted 01 June 2010 01:18:31AM [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 01 June 2010 01:26:48AM 1 point [-]

Hm, I've noticed before that the term 'Friendly' is sort of vague. What would I call an AI that optimizes strictly for my goals (and if I care about others' goals, so be it)? A Will-AI? I've said a few times 'your Friendly is not my Friendly' but I think I was just redefining Friendliness in an incorrect way that Eliezer wouldn't endorse.