= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mattnewport comments on The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is soliciting ideas - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
Bryan says:
"why couldn't economic growth of 1% (or 10%) continue forever in simulations? In the real world, we can't all be emperor of an infinite universe. But I don't see why every one of us couldn't preside over our own simulated utopias?"
My comment there was:
"The universe is made of atoms - and other particles. Virtual reality - and all the things economists study - is made of that stuff. You can't have simulations or value without things being ultimately made out of matter."
However, that doesn't prevent simulated high-utility worlds. It seems like the wirehead problem. Yes: we could go into a virtual world and award ourselves a centillion utility points - but then we and our simulated utopias would most likely be obliterated by the very first aliens that come across us - if a meteorite didn't dispatch us long before that.
I doubt you'd have to wait for aliens - humans, trans-humans or AIs who stayed outside the simulation would likely do the job first. One reason I'd have no desire to enter a simulation.
Natural selection deals with most wireheads. However, there are scenarios where the entire civilisation does this sort of thing.
If there are no competitors in the short term then natural selection's action could be delayed - until some turn up.