Blueberry comments on Hacking the CEV for Fun and Profit - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Wei_Dai 03 June 2010 08:30PM

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

Comments (194)

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

Comment author: Blueberry 04 June 2010 08:41:34PM 0 points [-]

I have no particular yuck factor involving IVF. And you're right that it's not obvious where to draw the line with things like turkey basters. To be safe, I'd exclude them.

Keep in mind that this is just for the first round, and the first round group would presumably decide to expand the pool of people. It's not permanently institutionalized. It's just a safety precaution, because the future of humanity is at stake.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 June 2010 09:34:17AM 1 point [-]

What risk are you trying to protect against?

Comment author: Blueberry 05 June 2010 05:16:04PM -1 points [-]

Something like the Dr. Evil CEV hack described in the main post. Essentially, we want to block out any way of creating new humans that could be used to override CEV, so it makes sense to start by blocking out all humans created artificially. It might also be a good idea to require the humans to have been born before a certain time, say 2005, so no humans created after 2005 can affect CEV (at least in the first round).

Turkey basters are probably not a threat. However, there's an advantage to being overly conservative here. The very small number of people created or modified through some sort of artificial means for non-CEV-hacking reasons can be added in after subsequent rounds of CEV. But if the first round includes ten trillion hacked humans by mistake, it will be too late to remove them because they'll outvote everyone else.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 June 2010 06:27:48PM 2 points [-]

Requiring that people have been incubated in a human womb seems like enough of a bottleneck, though even that's politically problematic if there are artificial wombs or tech for incubation in non-humans.

However, I'm more concerned that uncaring inhuman forces already have a vote.

Comment author: Blueberry 05 June 2010 06:40:09PM 3 points [-]

You may also be interested in this article:

The associations between prevalence and cultural dimensions are consistent with the prediction that T. gondii can influence human culture. Just as individuals infected with T. gondii score themselves higher in the neurotic factor guilt-proneness, nations with high T. gondii prevalence had a higher aggregate neuroticism score. In addition, Western nations with high T. gondii prevalence were higher in the ‘neurotic’ cultural dimensions of masculine sex roles and uncertainty avoidance. These results were predicted by a logical scaling-up from individuals to aggregate personalities to cultural dimensions.

Can the common brain parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, influence human culture?

Comment author: Blueberry 05 June 2010 08:25:03PM 0 points [-]

Requiring that people have been incubated in a human womb seems like enough of a bottleneck

You're probably right. It probably is. But we lose nothing by being more conservative, because the first round of CEV will add in all the turkey baster babies.