timtyler comments on A simple counterexample to deBlanc 2007? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: PhilGoetz 30 May 2011 05:09AM

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

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 May 2011 11:17:28AM 1 point [-]

The future is big enough that I don't think that cutting off the infinite tail helps. Look at the gigantic quantities of utility involved in hypothetical but practically grounded futures involving AI-assisted mankind reaching merely the rest of our galaxy, and according to which the most important thing for everyone to do right now is either work on FAI or donate to the SIAI. Is that a reasonable calculation, or a Pascal's Mugging?

As a rule of thumb, whenever something blows up infinitely at an infinite limit, one should consider that it may blow up practically at a practically reachable point.

Comment author: timtyler 30 May 2011 12:08:07PM *  0 points [-]

Look at the gigantic quantities of utility involved in hypothetical but practically grounded futures involving AI-assisted mankind reaching merely the rest of our galaxy, and according to which the most important thing for everyone to do right now is either work on FAI or donate to the SIAI. Is that a reasonable calculation, or a Pascal's Mugging?

Personally, I rate that as not being a reasonable calculation - though I do think that machine intelligence is an important field, which people should consider working on, if they have an aptitude for it.