timtyler comments on Open Problems Related to the Singularity (draft 1) - Less Wrong

39 Post author: lukeprog 13 December 2011 10:57AM

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: XiXiDu 14 December 2011 09:57:55AM *  2 points [-]

What about The Lifespan Dilemma and Pascal's Mugging?

Should we penalize computations with large space and time requirements? This is a hack that solves the problem, but is it true? Are computationally costly explanations less likely? Should I think the universe is probably a coarse-grained simulation of my mind rather than real quantum physics, because a coarse-grained human mind is exponentially cheaper than real quantum physics? Should I think the galaxies are tiny lights on a painted backdrop, because that Turing machine would require less space to compute?

Given that, in general, a Turing machine can increase in utility vastly faster than it increases in complexity, how should an Occam-abiding mind avoid being dominated by tiny probabilities of vast utilities?

It seems that as long as you don't solve those problems a rational agent might have a nearly infinite incentive to expend all available resources on attempting to leave this universe, hack the matrix or undertake other crazily seeming stunts.

Comment author: timtyler 14 December 2011 03:09:11PM 0 points [-]

It seems that as long as you don't solve those problems a rational agent might have a nearly infinite incentive to expend all available resources on attempting to leave this universe, hack the matrix or undertake other crazily seeming stunts.

I don't think this is a significant practical problem.

We have built lots of narrow intelligences. They work fine and this just doesn't seem to be much of an issue.