= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on Transparency and Accountability - 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 (141)
Appart from the issue JGWeissman brings up, even if you supposed that the lives saved all occurred 300 years in the future, a reasonable discount rate would still only give you a couple of orders of magnitude.
For example, 1.05^300 = 2.3 * 10^6
Which is nowhere near enough.
Edit: there are discount rates that would give you the result you want, but it still seems pritty plausible that, assuming Astronomical Waste, SIAI isn't a bad bet.
Sounds about right to me.
Huh? You think 6 is "a couple"? I wish I had your sex life!
But 5% per annum is far too high. It discounts the next generation to only a quarter of the current generation. Way too steep.
Double huh? And huh? some more. You wrote:
You imagine (conservatively) that there are a potential 10^18 lives to save 300 years into the future? Boy, I really wish I had your sex life.
If people 300 years from now are whole brain emulations or AIs, then they could reproduce like software with high population densities.
Alternatively, if the human-size brains were all sucked into the matrix long ago, there may well be about 1 person per-planet.