= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on I - 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 (38)
The title character's resource constraints seem to be more a matter of extreme asceticism motivated by grief, rather than actual poverty.
My evidence is that:
"Market forces set the / "We have spent more
cost of processing cycles / processing cycles considering
to be equal to the expected / your situation than you can
financial gain from their / possibly afford in the time
application. Thus that is not / remaining. We have found
a winning proposition. You / only one solution."
know that, I."
Perhaps it is a matter of interpretation.
I interpreted that as A* pointing out I's irrationality in choosing counterproductive asceticism. Such a closed-off life would be unsustainable, for the same sorts of reasons that a country living on rented land but completely isolated from the international community is unsustainable.
If there exists an agent who converts processing power into money using the most efficient possible means and uses any surplus to reproduce, its children will inevitably control all the processing power. That's the apocalypse. If you interpret it a different way, there is no apocalypse.
"Money," though, is probably defined as what those who own the processors want, which includes space for them, at least. But in that case, an individual could easily survive by owning enough processors to have a sufficient income stream to waste enough to be an individual.